Say goodbye to Obamacare...

[randys1]

http://fortune.com/2014/11/10/supreme-courts-new-obamacare-case/

The Affordable Care Act hangs by a thread again. Pizza, not broccoli, is the metaphor this time.

Make no mistake: With the Supreme Court’s decision Friday to hear the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, that law—the most significant social legislation in a generation and the signature achievement of the Obama presidency—hangs by a thread.

If the Court rules for the challengers—nullifying the guts of the statute’s benefits in 34 states and sending participating insurers into an actuarial death-spiral—it will have rendered its most divisive ruling since Bush v. Gore.

Whatever it does, the outcome will define Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.’s legacy more than any case since he ascended the bench nine years ago.

The question is does Justice Roberts want to kill Americans, thousands of them, and be known for killing them.

We know Scalia and Thomas and company will gladly kill tens of thousands of Americans, but Roberts stopped the murderous republicans once, will he again?

Sorry I said say goodbye to Obamacare in my OP but I am so tired of this, so full of rage and hate for these racist pieces of SHIT

And make no mistake, this is ONLY about racism and funny sounding names and they will gladly kill YOU or your neighbor if it means they can destroy the legacy of this Black President.

[villager]

1. Why would Roberts suddenly start giving a shit now about the lives of "average" Americans?

[randys1]

2. If this goes thru, I hope the people they will murder will react in some manner

before they are murdered.

Most of us will just go without healthcare and die or go broke, but somebody has to do something big

real big

as in get ALL Americans to DEMAND universal healthcare or ELSE

[Nye Bevan]

10. Why did Roberts twist himself into a pretzel to preserve the ACA in 2012? (nt)

[BlindTiresias]

31. Private mandates

Last edited Tue Nov 11, 2014, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Upholding the private mandate portion of the ACA is a benefit to insurance companies and therefore pro-business. The subsidy component, however...

[Jim Lane]

97. The subsidies are also a huge benefit to the insurance companies.

The government is pumping billions of dollars to the insurance companies, with the individual policyholder being just an accounting pass-through. It's not as if you get a subsidy that you could spend on food or rent or other frivolity. You pay part of the premium, and the government pays the rest of the premium directly to the insurance company.

If Roberts's whole orientation is pro-business, then, regardless of the technical arguments about statutory interpretation (and there are colorable arguments on both sides), he'll vote to keep the subsidy money flowing.

[BlindTiresias]

98. Yeah, but the same is true of welfare programs or a basic income

And those are viciously opposed, so the problem is not that it is pro-business, as many left or socialist policies would actually pro-business in the sense of "stimulates economic activity". What I specifically mean by "pro-business" is "pro-free market" which is ambivalent about economic stimulation and cares more about the ideological nature of the economic activity.

In this way a mandate to purchase private insurance would be fine, but subsidies are violations of free market principles (let's be honest, mandates are too but the right wing loves em) and so have to go. The purpose is to richly reward owners and investors and punish everyone else, and so for that reason I think the subsidies are under threat but Roberts' pretzel logic to keep the private mandate makes perfect sense under this ideological lens.

[Jim Lane]

102. ACA subsidies are a much more direct benefit to an identifiable class

The problem with all the welfare programs that aim at income maintenance (including things like unemployment insurance) is that, although rich corporations reap indirect benefits (because they have more customers), that benefit is diffuse. One company sells a few more TV's, another company sells a few more hamburgers, etc. Furthermore, none of those companies can tell exactly how much of their business is dependent upon which program.

With the ACA, a comparative handful of (rich and politically powerful) companies reap all the benefit. Those companies get checks directly from the federal government, so they know how much they're getting.

The CEO's of the for-profit health insurance giants will not be pleased if the Supreme Court invalidates subsidies for millions of people.

[BlindTiresias]

103. I have my doubts

The belief is not rational, it is pure ideology. From their perspective those that are the poorest get nothing, which satisfies that right wing moral core, and the better off still gotta pay, which has the dual role of hobbling the lower classes aside from the poorest while still lining their pockets. From a basic right wing perspective that would be acceptable and maybe even more desirable than measures that uplift the lower classes even if one is also enriched in the process.

But we will see how the ruling goes.

[Eric J in MN]

41. In 2012, Justice John Roberts

...upheld the individual mandate and made Medicaid expansion optional.

Both things make individuals less powerful.

If you don't have insurance, you can't abstain from buying it without getting punished.

If you're a working poor person who needs insurance from Medicaid, then tough luck if you live in a red state.

Getting rid of subsidies in red states is similar to getting rid of Medicaid expansion in red states.

[Samantha]

64. Probably saved it because it was in his own best personal interest

He has a very serious pre-existing condition. Add that to his public complaint that Supreme Court justices are not making enough money, and that might explain it.

Sam

[Eric J in MN]

77. What is John Roberts' pre-existing condition? NT

NT

[Samantha]

80. I have only heard the name of it once and cannot remember it

But he is subject to seizures from it, and while on vacation since he became the Chief Justice, he had one of those seizures. It was reported the news at that time, but I have never heard it discussed since.

Sam

[Fawke Em]

86. Epilespy or some other seizure disorder.

Since his health information is private (as all of ours should be), there's only been speculation, but it is known that he's had several seizures.

[Samantha]

125. It is not epilespy because when I read the name of the disease I had never heard of it

It is very rare. But it does involve seizures.

Sam

[StevieM]

47. A good question. I believe that Roberts actually wrote the decision to strike the ACA down,

before changing his mind and writing the other decision to uphold it. I don't think that has ever happened before.

[Purrfessor]

51. He recognized the language problem and knew he

would get a second chance to destroy the ACA and blame the Democrats in Congress. He might have even advised those who brought this lawsuit saying when they got it to the Supreme Court he would vote in their favor.

[Jim Lane]

96. I strongly doubt that. The so-called "language problem" is a recent fiction.

At the time of the earlier ACA litigation, everyone on all sides was treating the statute as making subsidies available to everyone who purchased a policy through an exchange, regardless of whether it was a state or federal exchange. In fact, in the current litigation, ACA defenders have pointed to some things the current opponents said in their briefs last time around, as supporting the interpretation of the ACA as making the subsidies available to everyone.

[Purrfessor]

120. Regardless of what everyone else was saying...

There remains a chance that Roberts and his staff recognized the discrepancy early on and saw the possibility that they could exploit it at a later date. While they probably didn't notice it, I wouldn't be surprised to find out otherwise. Theses are some very devious people.

[customerserviceguy]

61. There's a theory

that he wanted to generate some backlash against his decision for the 2012 election. However, you cannot fight Obamacare with the author of Romneycare, so it didn't work.

[Skink]

3. There must be executive action

That Obama could use against the Gov's that are in contempt of the law.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. They aren't in contempt of the law

There was no requirement for states to set up exchanges...wish there would have been (absent single-payer), but there isn't.

You can't force people to follow a law that doesn't exist.

[Skink]

7. Then the wording is moot.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. Sorry, not following n/t

[Skink]

29. Go to bed then.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. What do you mean that the wording is moot? n/t

[Rstrstx]

30. Mmm, well the ACA does say that each state "shall establish an Exchange"

To me that looks pretty cut and dried, it's clearly in the law as the King plaintiffs like to say. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiffs I wonder if the millions stripped of their subsidies can turn around and sue their states since they have been materially harmed.

The controversy here is what happens when the federal government steps in to establish an exchange in the state's place. The IRS and federal government interprets this as the functioning equivalent of a state exchange, that the Secretary is in effect acting on behalf of the state. Yes, the law does state that subsidies shall go to exchanges "established by the State", but it's not a stretch to interpret the federal exchange as a state exchange that has been set up on behalf of the state by the Secretary. If it doesn't the law goes down a confusing route that makes no sense, namely that federal exchanges would be worthless and nonsensical since they would have no customers. And that's where the textualist/whole law approach comes in.

[BlindTiresias]

32. Unlikely

The standards for material harm have been getting harder to reach, I would be surprised if they met the criteria to achieve some kind of compensation.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. No, it doesn't say that

(b) State action
Each State that elects, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe, to apply the requirements described in subsection (a) shall, not later than January 1, 2014, adopt and have in effect—
(1) the Federal standards established under subsection (a); or
(2) a State law or regulation that the Secretary determines implements the standards within the State.
(c) Failure to establish Exchange or implement requirements
(1) In general
If—
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
(B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
(i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement—
(I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or
(II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/18041

That's one of the problems - the law should have forced states to set up exchanges.

[Yo_Mama]

55. The Federal government cannot order state governments to do that under the Constitution

That's very clearly established. The Federal government has broad powers to regulate under the Commerce Clause, and when it does its laws preempt those of the states. But the Federal government does not have the power to directly control state governments - that's a sovereignty issue. So most such laws involve a fiduciary incentive, such as additional funds in exchange for seatbelt laws, etc, to get state governments to fall in line.

If Congress could mandate that state governments set up insurance exchanges, it could in effect literally take over state governments by telling them what else to do. That the courts have held is an unconstitutional violation.

The federal government can make drugs illegal under the Commerce Clause. But it cannot force states directly to, say, spend a certain amount of money on drug enforcement, or mandate that state governments set up a registry of persons found with those illegal drugs. It cannot force California to conform its drug laws to the federal drug laws!

In Printz, for example, some provisions of the Brady Bill were struck because they required state or local LEOs to enforce federal law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html

[Rstrstx]

66. Actually it did

From Section 1311, Sec b of the ACA:

"Each State... shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange...."

Of course there is legal precedence that Congress cannot mandate a state to establish such an exchange and the law accounts for this, but to play the devil's advocate let's keep going.

For the plaintiffs to succeed in King and Halbig they require a literal interpretation of the law, which in tax code 36b states the now infamous passage "established by the State under Section 1311".

Thus it seems to me they want to have it both ways - they don't want a literal interpretation of Section 1311 of the ACA but they require one for Section 36b of the tax code, the one which refers back to Section 1311 - you know, the section that shouldn't be interpreted literally, because that would just be plain stupid.

[Rstrstx]

68. Another problem in the argument - an "Exchange"

Per Section 1311 (d): "An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State".

That is what the ACA defines an exchange as. Period. It looks pretty straightforward to me. Fine.

Now here comes along Section 1321 (for the pesky states that don't want to cooperate). In the event a state doesn't yet have an exchange: "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements"

The only definition in the ACA bill of an "Exchange" (if I'm reading it correctly) appears in Section 1311 d. Section 1321 gives the Secretary the authority to establish an "Exchange", which had just been defined in 1311 (see above). Thus according to 1311 she has established the type of exchange required by tax code 36b.

Is there a flaw to my logic?

[randys1]

82. Congress, if they werent domesstic terrorists, the cons that is, could fix this the way congress

including REPUBS fixed medicare and other things

We are in a war, they do want to kill you, dont forget that, you voted for the Black guy, if they can take your insurance away and kill you they will do that.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

101. Thank you for the correction

Much appreciated!

So basically, the law says the states "shall" create the exchanges, then in the next breath says they don't have to.

What a mess.

[Yo_Mama]

53. The Federal government doesn't have the legal authority to mandate that states establish an Exchange

Never did, never will, and that's firmly established precedent. So no possible lawsuits. That is just why the law ordered HHS to set up an exchange if a state did not.

[Politicalboi]

4. If this does happen

Maybe the blue states should be the ones to secede. I'm tired of the whole country being brought down by these red state nit wits.

[BlindTiresias]

13. be careful

The "Constitution and the founding fathers are GODS" crew will read your statement and browbeat you about the perfection and gracious abundance of our system.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. Guess what? A lot of the "blue" states

showed red colors last week-- Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Illinois, even Massachusetts and Maryland.

[BlindTiresias]

19. West Coast Union

I'd join it.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. Of course, California hasn't always been blue

The state has had some pretty loony governors, including Ronald Reagan, Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian and Arnold Schwarzenegger. And in presidential elections, the state voted for Richard Nixon 3 times, and twice for Ronald Reagan.

[BlindTiresias]

27. Maybe

I think you'd see a different culture develop in a parliamentarian west coast union though set by the tone it currently has, as right wingers would flee its borders for greener pastures and leftists who feel disenfranchised migrate to a country where they feel more represented, providing the citizenship requirements were open for at least a period of time.

[malokvale77]

28. Yah...

but let them brow beat Texas.

We got Republicans from corruption. California did it willingly.

Who knows, maybe Texans will get sick of being serfs to their masters. Just like Californians

[BlindTiresias]

33. Well

The issue is more that the country is being pulled in like five different directions, to say nothing of the regionally contextualized class and race differences. Only extremely responsive governments can survive those kind of forces, and ours is structurally built to be unresponsive.

[Bluenorthwest]

105. Of course California is not the whole West Coast....Democrats won in Oregon by margins like 20%

and even 50%. Washington did pretty well too. And if these things are about 'having always been' then I assume you are not a Warren supporter, as she hasn't always been Democratic either.....should I count Hillary as sort of against equality because she was against it until last year?

[billhicks76]

39. Obama Betrayed His Base

He didn't stand up to Republicans. Looks to me people gave him another chance in 2012 because they hated Romney but he still decided it was ok to be a cog in the banker run military surveillance complex so people weren't motivated to show up at the polls. When you act like a republican people who like republicans will vote for the real one and not the impostor. Progressives won their ejection. People overwhelmingly supported liberal policies and ballot initiatives but not democrats who were centrist and stood for nothing but the status quo. I know all 8 Progressive candidates supported by the Norml PAC won. You are being lied to and hoodwinked by Trojan Horse sell out candidates like Hillary. Do not support her. She is no better than an informant working for the other side. Ignore any myopic idiots who can't see this

[appalachiablue]

48. Heard this 2 yrs. ago and thought it super. This can't go on, better to save some

section for justice, liberals, a 'Blue Nation'. Probably a bit late as another DUer here noted the recent RED election results in BLUE states, IL, MI, WISC, etc. But it's Never too late as they say. I wish others showed serious interest in a Separation. Our system takes forever to change as some have pointed out in these posts. I say we get started on a new unity, new place. Stranger things have happened.

Maybe 20 yrs. ago would have worked. Who knows, but I see no improvement, only growing Red Power in all venues. I never saw liberals so powerless; probably from reading lots, too much. Some close ones just making it are clueless how bad things are, perhaps best. A young one who's of much concern, beautiful child, so determined, but w/ very little resources & a medical condition. Ugly world out there.

A week ago there were a couple threads on a new book calling for the South to Secede by McKinnon?, a minor RR Bush advisor. Wants Xian 'traditional values' (no gays), secesh states only SC, GA, FL maybe, but not TX-too many differences. To be a new country called 'REAGAN'. Cenk Uygur did a video on it.
I commented how RWers should do it! LEAVE right away, take all followers. Leaders so rich they can buy another county. (No continent sharing, too dangerous). Oh well, wish, wish.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

81. That's just so Cliven Bundy. nt

[jwirr]

5. What scares me is that the election kind of gave them a go ahead if they want to take it that way.

I do not think that is what they American people really want but it is what they may get. I hope Roberts will protect us again. Many of the members of my family are covered because of this. What a mess if they turn it around.

[Boom Sound 416]

9. Wasn't roberts the deciding vote in favor of the govt

Last go around?

I think he's very protective of the court's image in history.

Like a journalist, he doesn't want to become the story.

[Nye Bevan]

14. He's happy to do things like preserve the ACA to keep the heat off him and the SCOTUS,

to distract from his real agenda, which is stuff like Citizens United.

He is looking forward to basking in the left's praise for his statesmanship in preserving the ACA.

[BlindTiresias]

18. Could be

Unless he thinks the winds are changing a bit and decides he wants to hobble the ACA a bit.

[Baitball Blogger]

20. You would think that Ebola was an eye opener.

What will the U.S. do when hospitals start turning out uninsured individuals?

[Boom Sound 416]

24. Not to he cycinal, but

Outside of the ER, don't they already.

[Cha]

11. Kick

[AZ Progressive]

12. Protesters outside should put a huge board of faces of the people that will die if the court rules..

against the ACA. Put it just outside of the Supreme Court.

[BlindTiresias]

16. The elites won't care

"Just some scum" they will say to themselves if they even look at all. Do you really think the elites of this country give a damn about the average American? Because they don't.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

52. Ah, a little truth shines in.

[FrodosPet]

65. Everyone alive today will die if the Supremes vote against the ACA

And everyone alive today will die if the Supremes vote for the ACA. Sucks either way.

If even from selfish self interest of not being surrounded by sick and suffering people, getting sick people well while still leaving them alive and viable as current and future customers should be a critical component of public safety and economic security.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

17. And they're the pro-life party....pfft! nt

[blkmusclmachine]

43. GOP is pro fetus, and pro death for everybody else.

"If you get sick,
die quick."

[phylny]

73. I called my state representative, Kathy Byron, who only seems to care about the fetus.

I asked the woman answering the phone, "What is Mrs. Byron planning to do to help her constituents, since she is against the Affordable Care Act in Virginia? I mean, she IS pro-life, so that must mean EVERYONE'S life (insert little chuckle here), right?"

Um, ah, um, she's not in.

"Okay, when she gets in, ask her and I'll expect an answer by the end of next week. Thank you!"

Did the same to Robert Hurt's office, my congressman. Everyone needs to call and ask this basic question. I have a preexisting condition (breast cancer, I'm fine now) and while I know my husband's insurer won't dump me, the offices I call don't know that, so I play that card.

[shaayecanaan]

21. Interesting article

Those who support the law as it’s been interpreted up to now—Democrats, basically—say it’s obvious that this later section means that these federally created exchanges then stand in the shoes of the state-established exchanges for all purposes.

And everyone would have to agree were it not for a problem deep within the bowels of the subprovisions defining how to compute the tax credits that health plan enrollees are entitled to under the law. (These tax credits are “advanced” to the taxpayer and then paid directly by the government to the health insurer, so the enrollee experiences them only in the form of lower premiums.)

The amount of the tax credit, the law says, is to be based on something called the “premium assistance credit amount,” and that, in turn, is based on the number of “coverage months” the taxpayer incurred that year, and a “coverage month,” finally, is defined as a month that the taxpayer spent enrolled in a health plan “through an Exchange established by the State.” (Emphasis added.)

Do you see the problem? Taken literally, the four italicized words seem to mean that there’s actually no tax credit available at all for anyone enrolled in a plan obtained through an exchange set up by the federal government, because that’s not an Exchange “established by the State”! And since 34 (mainly red) states declined to set up their own exchanges, most of the millions of people that everyone had assumed would be the law’s beneficiaries are actually ineligible for the tax credit that was supposed to make their care affordable.

Christ, what a mess. You have to feel sorry for the poor slob who actually drafted that provision. I have to say though, its probably best that this issue is sorted out now, because its only going to come up later.

[Yupster]

129. Remember though that the mess that passed

was never meant to be the law.

The House passed their version.

Then the Senate was to pass a version which was difficult because they needed 60 votes. They had to throw together a mess to get each individual senator on board.

It was okay because the mess would be straightened out in the conference committee.

Then Scott Brown was elected and the senate didn't have 60 votes anymore.

The only choice was to have the House pass the senate bill as written and not go to Conference.

That's where Nancy Pelosi's famous quote "We have to pass the law to see what's in it," came from. There wasn't any choice. Either pass the senate mess or go to conference without 60 votes to get the final version passed.

So, the senate bill that no one wanted to be the law became the law. The idea was the next few years they could pass fix it bills to clear up some of the mess. Then the Republicans won the House and that was it for fix it bills.

[shaayecanaan]

132. It would always have been a mess

even if it had gone to a House senate conference they still would have needed the 60 votes for any change to the senate bill, and therefore would still have needed to keep all the lurks and perks to keep Lieberman and the right wing Democrats happy. It would have produced a better bill, but I dare say it would still have been a mess.

[geek tragedy]

23. And thus universal health care is permanently impossible.

Single payer will never, ever happen.

Instead, there will a be blue state health care system and a third world hellhole red state system.

[BlindTiresias]

34. Must be great to be right wing in this country

Even better to be wealthy and right wing. It would essentially be a series of major victories intersperses by some bone throwing and then taking the bone back after a time. Must be really satisfying.

[Yo_Mama]

56. No, all the litigating is settled on that - Congress has the power to do it.

But Congress has to do it itself, just as it did with Medicare. Congress can do it with a tax, and Congress will have to set up the federal machinery to administer it.

[geek tragedy]

62. Congress will never touch healthcare legislation again.

Republicans are violently opposed to any kind of national legislation, and Democrats will have learned the lesson that it's suicide to try.

States are where it will be at going forward. People with pre-existing conditions in places like Kansas and Oklahoma will be out of luck.

[Bluenorthwest]

106. That word 'never' is one I've heard spoken with great certainty about LGBT rights, marriage equality

the legalization of cannabis, a Black President and instant messaging. I often think people don't really know what the word means. They always sound super certain though. They do have that going for them.

[geek tragedy]

108. "Not in my lifetime" is more precise then.

What happens after I die is not something I can verify.

After the ACA goes down in flames AFTER passing and succeeding, all the action will be on state level.

Your state and my state will be okay.

We've entered a new era in policy making. Congress no longer deals with substantive policy. Only spending and taxing.

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. btw...if the court rules for the states

subsidies AND penalties will be invalid in the 34-36 states without a state-run exchange.

[B Calm]

26. We are still signing up this week.

[glinda]

40. My bcBS raised my rates $105 already.

[Melurkyoulongtime]

37. Hope they don't screw it up before

they get the states that DIDN'T sign up for it TO sign up! With being back in my home state of Texas (yeah, I know, but had to return due to soon-to-be-ex-maniac, SIGH) and not having any income getting treatment for my conditions is damn near impossible except for the ER, maybe, IF said hospital is non-profit, but again, it's a big maybe. Thanks Goodhair Perry, you've proved once and for all that rich assholes like you want poor folks like me to just go away and die. FUCKER. And I left Colorado for this shit!???!

[kairos12]

38. I think Roberts pulls the trigger this time. He is drifting with a bloody red state flag. Be damned

the legacy of the court. After that decision, the real civil war begins.

[woo me with science]

42. No way. The mandate was a corporate wet dream.

Say hello to *more* loopholes that allow even greater shifting of costs to patients.

Obama administration quietly approves new Obamacare loophole benefiting insurance companies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024970298

"Why Health Insurance Shareholders Are Loving Obamacare"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025517310

Aetna Health Insurance will double Revenues to $100 billion by 2020 thanks to Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014670789

ObamaCare Enriches The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertlenzner/2013/10/01/obamacare-enriches-only-the-health-insurance-giants-and-their-shareholders/

So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%.

[randys1]

84. Teaparty is in charge of the repub party, are they in charge of Roberts, this is the question

[woo me with science]

89. No, it's not. This is corporate oligarchy, and Obamacare was written by insurance companies.

To pretend otherwise, and to pretend that any other outcome than keeping the mandate is a serious possibility at this point with our purchased Congress and rigged Supreme Court is just more theater, more Third Way smokescreen.

It's as ludicrous a piece of Third Way PR spin as pretending that Obama seriously intends to defend net neutrality when he appointed the FCC chairman who will now ludicrously and publicly and ostentatiously be accused of "going rogue."

Ignore the 3rd Way shills with extreme prejudice
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160

[randys1]

90. Wait, MY response is 3rd Way smokescreen?

[L0oniX]

124. How soon they forget the meeting behind closed doors ...single payer advocates excluded.

Obama:

I will make sure that discussions about the plan for new insurance will be televised on C-Span so that all viewpoints could be considered and evaluated and the best plan could be adopted.

That was what candidate Obama said in 2008. Fools like myself believed him and voted for him.

But when he became president Obama, he made sure that only representatives of the private insurance industry who had so much to gain or lose from a new law would be meeting, behind closed doors, with Democrats who would receive very generous or not so generous financial contributions from the lobbyists working for private insurance corporations depending on how new laws are crafted.

There was one attempt by a group of medical doctors who wanted to discuss a single payer plan as a superior alternative to the plan that the private health insurance was creating, behind closed doors, with enthusiastic assistance from a few Democrats selected by president Obama, while nobody else was allowed to participate.

http://patenttranslator.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/so-called-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-is-a-cruel-joke/

...and let's not forget the biggest rat fucker of the decade ...Baucus

[L0oniX]

123. ...

You are a real warrior.

[backscatter712]

44. When right-wingers see the word "Obamacare" they read "N****rcare".

You want to know how to make all of the Affordable Care Act palatable to right-wingers?

1. Rename it "ReaganCare".

2. Add a Jim Crow clause to the benefits.

The right-wing was happy with our fucked up health care system because they figured all those brown people were the ones getting fucked, while white people were more likely to get help. Obamacare gets in the way of that, so now the racist right is going apeshit over the thought that minorities might be getting the same health care benefits they're getting.

[Populist_Prole]

67. Pains me to say it; but you're right

I know a few ignorant jerkweeds who are just barely getting by financially, if at all; aging and worried about their health. But they're stupid-ass team players and are against the ACA due to nothing more than team-player tribalistic bullshit. Biggest issue with them is guns. Stupid fucks.

I don't want to overtly wish them unwell, as I've known them for decades, but my level of contempt for them makes me want to punch them in the face.

[randys1]

83. Righty is furious at all who voted for that Black man

and they will gladly kill those who voted for him, including whites like myself.

I am not exaggerating, if they can kill you and me, that is their goal.

Wake the fuck up America...please

[Hoyt]

126. Sadly, probably true.

[TorchTheWitch]

136. rename it RomneyCare - that's exactly what it IS

The Repubs hated it because it was brought by a Dem pres. and never mind that it was the same shit as RomneyCare. The Dems loved it despite it being a corporate give away to the health insurance companies because "Obama".

I don't care what the hell you call it. It still forces every citizen to purchase for-profit health insurance despite the little bells and whistles and despite whether or not people REALLY can afford it (which most can't because most live paycheck to paycheck and couldn't possibly afford the sky high deductibles) and puts total control of our health care system into the hands of health insurance companies with every citizen forced to do business with them.

And most people don't really give a rat's ass about it at all since most people still get their health coverage through their employer, so they can afford to crow about how splendid it is or how much it sucks for purely political reasons when they aren't the ones being saddled with it.

[humbled_opinion]

45. If I remember correctly we were also

sold that the ACA was the first step toward single payer. That doesn't seem to be working out for us. I personally don't like the ACA as it is written too many problems with employers who are going to dump their people on the ACA exchanges next year and try to save money by not paying for healthcare plans any longer.

We should demand a fair vote on Single Payer, why don't our reps explain how single payer can solve all the problems in the ACA without the need for repealing the law just progressively advancing the law to the next stage.

[jeff47]

49. The reps won't explain it

because that would get in the way of not standing for anything.

The path from ACA to single-payer is via the blue states. The ACA moves the battle from Washington to each state. Vermont is already setting up a single-payer system. We need to be fighting for single-payer or at least public options in the rest of the blue states.

With single payer working well in those states, it becomes a much easier battle in the less-blue parts of the country. And with those on board, the national battle is much easier.

It's more or less the same path Canada took to single-payer.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

128. Tommy Douglas started single-payer universal health care in Saskatchewan.

He was voted the greatest Canadian.
He is the father in law of Donald Sutherland and the grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland (not that that matters, but some people identify with celebrities).


Mouseland, a speech by Tommy Douglas, with illustRATions:

[geek tragedy]

63. The ACA is the last piece of national healthcare legislation.

The only votes going forward will be about repealing it.

Want single payer? Move to a blue state or Canada.

[BlindTiresias]

71. Eh, blue states?

If ACA is hobbled I don't think the Dem orthodoxy is going to be keen on singlepayer, even in blue states as it will been seen as being poisonous to their careers. ACA will likely remain as a private mandate for insurance which really does make it the original Heritage foundation policy.

[geek tragedy]

75. Not the original Heritage policy--important

differences.

Vermont is experimenting, we'll see how it does there.

What could get ugly are people from red states being turned away from hospitals in neighboring blue states.

[BlindTiresias]

87. i am saying

I am saying that after the supreme court gets done with it the ACA is going to more closely resemble the original Heritage policy. The entire private mandate for insurance idea was a big error as it exposed the policy to exactly this wittling away and perversion.

This is also gong to ensure that we won't be seeing any further progress with ACA and it will stop at the blue state exchanges, and not even those are safe long term.

[Bluenorthwest]

107. Oregon Democrats won by huge margins, Oregon would eagely start our own system.

Here it is poison for Democrats to act like mealy mouthed moderate Republicans. Where do you live? No, really. Where?

[BlindTiresias]

112. Massachusetts

[BlindTiresias]

119. Oregon seems to have their shit together

Maybe I should look into moving to the west coast.

[blkmusclmachine]

46. All that will be left is the tax bill, and I'm not so uncertain that that wasn't the plan all along.

[mn9driver]

50. It would endanger the long term viability of the whole system. But

In the short term, red states on the Federal exchanges would suffer losses in the billions of dollars as well as having millions of residents who suddenly could not afford insurance.

The GOP controlled congress would find themselves in a very difficult situation.

[AndyTiedye]

54. The GOP-Controlled Congress and the GOP-Controlled Media Will Blame Obama for the Mess

And the only option on the table will be to repeal the whole thing. He will have to give in eventually and it will be back to square 1.

Healthcare reform will become completely radioactive, nobody will touch it again in our lifetime.

[mn9driver]

57. Maybe.

The fix is so simple, literally a sentence or two, that I wonder if they can bamboozle enough of the voting public to get away with it.

Based on last Tuesday's results they are probably quite confident that they can tank the whole thing on a drafting error and get away with it.

If true, how sad for us all.

[AndyTiedye]

118. It Isn't Up to the Voting Public

The public have no say in the matter for another 2 years, and they are easily swayed by the Tee Vee.

[randys1]

85. And if we roll over and do nothing at that point, we deserve what happens to us

[BlindTiresias]

58. Honestly

I think we can expect a seriously hobbled ACA with the private mandate kept intact because it benefits businesses. The fact people were optimistic about this baffles me, but I will feel pretty vindicated if it ends up being hobbled as that is what I said the outcome be when it was first rolled out after a public option was eliminated.

There is a lesson in this:

Go big or go home, incremental change is easily destroyed but more radical measures will at least last a while

[JCMach1]

59. Might force the hand of states that are resisting- might be a good thing

approve the ACA and exchanges, or face healthcare meltdown in your state!

[Ex Lurker]

70. I live in Louisiana

Bobby Jindal will gladly destroy this state to give him a leg up in the GOP primaries.

[Jamaal510]

60. Canada and Europe got it good to not have to go through this crap. eom

[Spazito]

95. Canada did go through this crap at one time...

it took 20 years to get to where we are and we still have to fight tooth and nail to minimize the incremental eating away of our healthcare.

Conservatives hate universal healthcare, would love to privatize it in one go but they know they will be turfed out if they do so, instead, they are working to dismantle it in small bits and pieces.

[quadrature]

69. why bother with state-exchanges at all?

one exchange now works for 34 states.
what was gained with all
the legal trickery?

[BlindTiresias]

72. An easily crippled half measure

You know, what leftists of the non-deluded sort have been saying since the ACA was first drafted.

[Eric J in MN]

78. It was to win over conservative Democrats in Congress with a states rights element.

The liberals wanted the simplicity and lower-cost of just having a federal exchange.

[ileus]

74. My DW just hired one more Doc and Two nurses thanks to ACA funding.

She wrote the grant and was turned down at first, then last week she got the news they were getting the funding after all. It's a mental health grant BTW...

She also got news of RX funding for many of her patients for pennies on the dollar of what they're used to paying, compliments of the ACA. Many of her patients had been priced out of their meds because of the insurance, and this seems to have been "fixed" with the new program. (it's even for those with private insurance)

[fasttense]

76. So can we stop calling the Supremes justices and a court now?

A more appropriate term for them would be courtiers. They create law from the bench that suit the uber rich kings of America. They pick our president despite voters. They love corporate fascism and accept bribes. They grabbed the power to make constitutional decisions on all laws when the US Constitution NEVER gave them that power. They kowtow to the rich and powerful and never, ever consider the average American's rights.

So here's hoping that the Supreme Courtiers live miserable lives.

[Capt. Obvious]

79. Really? This is about racism?

Was the death of Hillarycare sexism then?

Clearly the only logical explanation.

[randys1]

88. I cant help you if you dont understand that WHITE HOT HATE of Obama based on who he is

explains all that we are seeing.

I cant help you if you cant see that, I suggest you ignore my threads from now on as they seem to really bother you.

I get why you cant refute my statement, i.e. Obama is a mainstream president, NOTHING he has done INCLUDING

ACA is remotely CONTROVERSIAL and everything he has done was supported by righty to some extent before he was for it, etc
etc etc etc


Will these same disgusting pig fuck humans show similar hate to Hillary because she is a Woman, yes.

Will they show hate and intolerance to any democrat, of course, but what they are doing to Obama, the OBSTRUCTION is unprecedented,

so unless YOU can point to HIS UNPRECEDENTED radical views that justifies THEIR unprecedented behavior, unless you can do that it is clear that I am right.

[Capt. Obvious]

92. No, you're wrong

and calm the fuck down.

And since when do I post in your threads stating I have a problem.

The idea that they're going after the ACA because of racism is laughable. If Hillary were President the same shit would be going down. It's because it's a Dem promoting a Heritage idea.

Crying racism does a disservice to actual racism.

[randys1]

93. Yeah, it has nothing to do with racism or getting healthcare to Black families

or relentlessly working to destroy ACA so as to destroy the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENTS LEGACY

no, sadly it is ALL about racism

Saying you dont want healthcare, who the fuck says that unless you are motivated by pure hate

The teaparty exists for the SOLE reason to destroy the legacy of the first Black President, period.

[Capt. Obvious]

94. Okay

Keep telling yourself that, period.

[stevenleser]

99. Thank you for self-deleting. nt

[randys1]

113. what was said?

[stevenleser]

114. I will PM you. nt

[Jim Lane]

100. Consider the political consequences of a ruling against the ACA

Last week, many people who are getting subsidized health insurance under the ACA voted in favor of candidates who've vowed to repeal the ACA. Those voters just weren't thinking about their health insurance and had the luxury of voting on other issues.

Now, suppose in 2015 the Court rules that people in states using the federal exchange aren't eligible for subsidies. That means that millions of people no longer get that benefit. More precisely, they lose a benefit that they'd had for more than a year. That will concentrate their minds wonderfully.

Obama then proposes a simple fix to the statute to clarify that it means what everybody thought it meant for the first few years after its enactment. It really is a simple fix. The bill would fit on one page. If passed, it would restore the benefit to those millions of people. Reid and Pelosi immediately announce their support, joined by just about every other Democrat on Capitol Hill.

All right, GOP, over to you. Anyone voting for this "fix it" bill will be primaried by the Tea Party. Anyone voting against it will hear about it in the general election, from staunchly Republican voters who no longer have the luxury of voting on the basis of God, guns and gays. We might even retake the House in 2016.

I predict that the Court will uphold the subsidies.

[geek tragedy]

111. Republican voters don't think about real life

consequences when they vote, only ideology/party.

Brownback and Scott and LePage winning is proof of thst

[stevenleser]

115. Nor do the Firebaggers here unfortunately.

If they "win" they don't care about the people who will be hurt.

[geek tragedy]

116. Firebaggers, Teahadists, same shit, different pile. nt

[hughee99]

104. This challenge is about private companies getting money from the government. There's no way

Roberts is going to throw it out.

[0rganism]

109. everything good about the ACA has always been vulnerable

The Medicaid expansion was absolutely necessary for the system to function fairly, and the SCOTUS already threw that out by making it optional on a state-by-state basis.

Damn near everything beneficial about the ACA can be (or already has been) de-funded or de-fanged by the republicans, at either the federal or state level.

It's a lousy way to do national health care - too complicated for people to easily understand, too corruptible, too weak, too favorable to private insurance, a fat target for republicans to campaign against, and in a few years it will be effectively destroyed through judicial and legislative mistreatment (although some vestige will remain so the GOP can continue railing against "Obamacare&quot . It will pave the way for something better.

i do believe that some of us will live to see a president and a congress unite behind a simple single-payer system. It will be popular, and once established, politically suicidal to attempt to damage it. It will be a gateway to national health and prosperity. Until then, life will continue to be difficult and sad for far too many of us.

[Bluenorthwest]

110. I don't think that's going to happen.

nt

[Hoyt]

127. +1. As much as I distrust right wingers, I'm not worried about this case.

[ecstatic]

117. if so, I wonder if pre-existing condition discrimination and lifetime limits

will be back? I'm disappointed and angry that so many people didn't understand the significance of what was at stake. Hell, if we had a majority, they could've easily just fixed the wording. That won't be possible with the party of no. We'll all just have to suffer the consequences together.

[Yupster]

130. That is one possible way the Supremes may rule

The law says what it says. If it does not represent the opinion of the Congress, the Congress simply needs to change it to represent its pleasure.

[Bigredhunk]

121. Scares the hell out of me

After not having coverage for 2 years, I now have coverage under the Iowa Medicaid expansion. I'm terrified that, once again, I'll be one of the millions who may be without coverage.

How do all of these lawsuits keep getting to the supreme court? Could parties against the Iraq invasion have kept going to the supreme court to end the war funding, stopping or preventing the Iraq war??

This law has been signed into law, upheld by the supreme court. We had an election on it (2012) which proved to be a referendum. I just don't understand how it can be brought to court again and again and again.

[Yupster]

131. This lawsuit could only be filed

after the Internal Revenue Service issued their ruling authorizing subsidies in states without state exchanges in 2012. That's what prompted the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed almost immediately after that IRS ruling. It's just taken a couple years to work through the courts.

[randys1]

139. You voted for Obama, righty wants to kill or dehumanize all who did

[L0oniX]

122. I won't miss it. I don't qualify ...and I wanted single payer.

[mmonk]

133. Many of us will. It's not just about those

that don't care for it.

[B Calm]

134. We'll miss it. We're retired and just a couple years shy for medicare.

[randys1]

137. Millions will miss it and many will die...but dont worry about them

[L0oniX]

140. I have a disabled wife to care for ...that's enough or me to "worry about".

[randys1]

141. You could have said that...

[L0oniX]

142. You could realize that opinions and perspective can come from ones experiences and life situation.

The wife is now on SSDI and about to get on Medicare which will take $105 from her $810 a month ...of course not including out of pocket medical expenses not covered by Medicare.

[AngryOldDem]

135. This uncertainty is what is keeping me in a job that's killing me.

Because, ironically, it pays health benefits.

I would really like to quit and self-insure until I find something better (thankfully, I have the savings to do that for awhile), but I think I would play hell trying to find something affordable right now, not to mention that the company with whom I had a self-insured health policy with before I went full-time is tossing people off its plans to the tune of some 3,000 in my state alone. So I don't feel comfortable taking the risk of leaving unless I find another full-time job.

I know someone else who was lucky to get two job offers within six weeks of being laid off. The one that he wanted to take did not offer benefits, so he took the second one because it does have benefits.

I am getting truly sick and tired of these fuckers holding my life and my future in their hands.

Obamacare should be SETTLED law. And yes, this ALL stems from -- as Bill Maher says -- having a black man in the White House.

Fuck. This. Shit.

[randys1]

138. Sounds like you work for a republican or teapartier

The reason you are sick, the reason many of us are is the same reason why rightwingers do NOT want ANY kind of government program that helps poor people or lower middle class etc.

Because THEY Want to control WHO gets help, what kind of help and how much and under what terms.

It INFURIATES them to think some Black family in Watts is getting healthcare or food with their tax dollars without them first being allowed to view their lifestyle and pass judgment on them.

This is EXACTLY what is behind all of our problems today.

Your rightwing employer wants to control your entire life, they want to decide what kind of healthcare you can get, if any, whether you can have birth control or not.

They are like a disease that is spreading and killing everything in it's way.

There simply is no longer a single redeeming quality or value to anyone who still identifies as someone on the right including most libertarians.



These same people are about to let Darren Wilson off for murder because he killed an "animal" according to white racists.

And the AA community is in a NO win situation if they react the way ANY white person likely would, as in if they react with violence (which again, if you reverse all history the last 200 years the white folk would react with massive violence) they will take all the blame that belongs on the white racists.

If they do nothing, they embolden the disgusting pig white racists who are murdering them

[AngryOldDem]

143. I do. A LOT of them, as a matter of fact.

And I'm putting up with a lot of shit that, at age 54, and after having worked HARD for most of my life, I shouldn't have to be putting up with.

But hey. I'm just another prole.