Supreme Court Upholds "Obamacare"

TemplarS

Posts: 5,159

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:18PM, withwonderingawe wrote:

The court has said there is no limit to how we can be taxed, think about that.

Hate to break it to you, but Congress has had that ability for the last 99 years (read the 16th Amendment).

Ebon

Posts: 7,637

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:34PM, CharikIeia wrote:
Why that? Makes no sense to me.

Since the ACA mandates that everyone carry some form of insurance, the insurance companies just got handed about thirty million new customers (some of which will be heavily subsidised but it's all money to them).

Weren't the insurance companies the biggest lobby against Obamacare?

Yes but for different reasons. The ACA also bans lifetime limits on care, bans people being excluded for pre-existing conditions and mandates a minimum 80% spend on providing care. The ACA is a very long way from perfect (not least because the liberal option - single-payer - was off the table from the start) but it does curb some of the insurance industry's more outrageous abuses. It's worth pointing out, as others have, that the ACA is essentially identical to the plan the Republicans came up with in the 90's but they opposed it now out of sheer hatred of Obama and the Democrats.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Ebon

Posts: 7,637

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:47PM, TemplarS wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but Congress has had that ability for the last 99 years (read the 16th Amendment).

Don't waste your time trying to rebut the zombies, they only think in GOP soundbites.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

CharikIeia

Posts: 8,303

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:44PM, arielg wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:34PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:23AM, Girlchristian wrote:

The insurance companies are happy, they'll be making a lot more money now.

Why that? Makes no sense to me.

Because everybody is required to buy insurance. And the insurance companies are the only one who sell that.

This is stupid reasoning.

Everybody needs to buy bread, and it's not expensive or making bakers very rich...

When markets get larger, this does not automatically mean sellers will make more profits.

tl;dr

teilhard

Posts: 42,572

And NOW they HATE "The Plan" ...

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:44PM, REteach wrote:

Yep--this was a Republican plan--until Obama adopted it.

mecdukebec

Posts: 13,281

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:38PM, teilhard wrote:

And NOW they HATE "The Plan" ...

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:44PM, REteach wrote:

Yep--this was a Republican plan--until Obama adopted it.

It was Willard, the Etcha-Sketch's plan in Massachusetts, too; that is, until the Koch Bros told the Wingos to be "again' it."

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."

TemplarS

Posts: 5,159

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:35PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Everybody needs to buy bread, and it's not expensive or making bakers very rich...

When markets get larger, this does not automatically mean sellers will make more profits.

There's another angle.

Some people (now) do not buy insurance because they are not sick and do not think they need it. So what you will have now is these people paying into the pool.

1) This is good for the pool, because this is how insurance works. People who don't need it subsidize those who do (same way as my house insurance does, since my house has never been on the receving end of a fire, tornado, or the like).

2) It is good for the insurers, because they will have more people paying in who will not (many of them) make many large claims. They like this sort of customer; this is the sort of customer they can make money off of (same way as my house and auto insurance companies have made tons of money off of me, since I have had very few claims).

teilhard

Posts: 42,572

And ... In the Run-Up to The 2008 Election, Sen. John McCain (GOP, Arizona) said as clearly as could be, "Everyone should be required to buy Health Insurance ..."

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:41PM, mecdukebec wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:38PM, teilhard wrote:

And NOW they HATE "The Plan" ...

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:44PM, REteach wrote:

Yep--this was a Republican plan--until Obama adopted it.

It was Willard, the Etcha-Sketch's plan in Massachusetts, too; that is, until the Koch Bros told the Wingos to be "again' it."

TemplarS

Posts: 5,159

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:41PM, mecdukebec wrote:

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:38PM, teilhard wrote:

And NOW they HATE "The Plan" ...

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:44PM, REteach wrote:

Yep--this was a Republican plan--until Obama adopted it.

It was Willard, the Etcha-Sketch's plan in Massachusetts, too; that is, until the Koch Bros told the Wingos to be "again' it."

Well, yes, but in a way, the SCOTUS decision is very good news for the GOP.

Because now they can do nothing but campaign against Obamacare. Many of their supporters are not perceptive enough to demand answers as to specifically what plan the Republicans would offer as an alternative.

Had the court dumped the ACA, it would have deprived the Republicans of the chance to campaign against it (why beat a dead horse?), and both they and the Democrats would have been forced to offer up alternative plans.

Sigmund

Posts: 1,190

I think one of the most interesting things to come out of this will be the GOP/conservative response to Chief Justice John Roberts. Twice this week he has voted against the standard GOP position in high profile cases.

Will there still be cries of "judicial activism" from both side of the debate?

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot