Author Topic: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional  (Read 537 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« on: December 14, 2018, 10:31:29 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34807
  • Tommy Points: 5801
https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/texas-aca-lawsuit/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

So the Republican Congress vote to get rid of the penalty for not adhering to the individual mandate, then have Republican states bring a law suit against the act to a very conservative judge in Texas and he rules because the penalty for individual mandates don't exist the entire law is unconstitutional.

I don't understand all the reasons or the different laws that make it so, but that is my read on the situation. The appeals will be very quick, but if the ruling stands up all pre existing conditions patients will be in peril and millions of Medicaid recipients will lose there coverage. That's long term as the law might be unconstitutional but won't be rolled back immediately even if the appeal isn't successful.

I don't get the Republican party on this. A huge majority of America approves of this law. Repealing it puts tens of millions out of insurance coverage and will hurt a massive amount of Republican voters.

Is the Republican party just so block headed that they have decided because Obama got the law instated that they have to get rid of it no matter how it affects millions and millions of Americans? If Obama passed it it must be bad, let's get rid of it no matter how much it helps people?

I just don't get it.

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2018, 11:00:21 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36942
  • Tommy Points: -27554
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I get the gist of the ruling.

SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because itís a tax

Without tax penalties related to the individual mandate, is it still a tax? Maybe not.

If itís no longer a tax, is it no longer Constitutional? Seemingly not.

Itís a compelling argument, but I donít think Roberts wants any part of that.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2018, 11:07:56 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34807
  • Tommy Points: 5801
I get the gist of the ruling.

SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because itís a tax

Without tax penalties related to the individual mandate, is it still a tax? Maybe not.

If itís no longer a tax, is it no longer Constitutional? Seemingly not.

Itís a compelling argument, but I donít think Roberts wants any part of that.
But I wonder, did the Republican Congress purposely get rid of the tax so that they could get this ruling? That is what is so bothersome to me. Is this the Republican's party to go around the Supreme Court ruling? I find the whole thing troubling because it effects the poorest and sickest of Americans.

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2018, 11:13:33 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36942
  • Tommy Points: -27554
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I get the gist of the ruling.

SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because itís a tax

Without tax penalties related to the individual mandate, is it still a tax? Maybe not.

If itís no longer a tax, is it no longer Constitutional? Seemingly not.

Itís a compelling argument, but I donít think Roberts wants any part of that.
But I wonder, did the Republican Congress purposely get rid of the tax so that they could get this ruling? That is what is so bothersome to me. Is this the Republican's party to go around the Supreme Court ruling? I find the whole thing troubling because it effects the poorest and sickest of Americans.

I donít know if theyíre that smart.

I think they wanted to eat their cake and have it too. They didnít have the guts to rescind the popular provisions, but guttingthe individual mandate appeals to young, healthy people.

I agree with you, though: if the entire thing collapses, thatís going to potentially hurt a lot of red statevoters.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2018, 11:36:43 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19698
  • Tommy Points: 9018
I get the gist of the ruling.

SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because itís a tax

Without tax penalties related to the individual mandate, is it still a tax? Maybe not.

If itís no longer a tax, is it no longer Constitutional? Seemingly not.

Itís a compelling argument, but I donít think Roberts wants any part of that.
But I wonder, did the Republican Congress purposely get rid of the tax so that they could get this ruling? That is what is so bothersome to me. Is this the Republican's party to go around the Supreme Court ruling? I find the whole thing troubling because it effects the poorest and sickest of Americans.

I donít know if theyíre that smart.

I think they wanted to eat their cake and have it too. They didnít have the guts to rescind the popular provisions, but guttingthe individual mandate appeals to young, healthy people.

I agree with you, though: if the entire thing collapses, thatís going to potentially hurt a lot of red statevoters.
frustrating that in a number of media interviews of people in red states where they were asked if the like/dislike Obamacare and the vast majority said they disliked it however when people were asked if they liked the ACA they really liked it --> in the interviews where these people were told Obamacare is the ACA, the 2 most popular reactions (at least the ones shown) were 1) anger/irritation at being shown how ignorant they are on the topic or 2) an argument with the media person that Obamacare isn't the ACA but not based on any actual facts

Obamacare isn't close to perfect but it opened access to healthcare for many who didn't have it.  the fact Reps were running on being the ones who fought for protecting pre-existing conditions shows just how slick they are and how gullible they're base is if they actually believe that.

thing is, I don't know if I should feel a lack of compassion about those who need this insurance yet were foolish enough to vote for candidates that pushed to take away that coverage. 

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2018, 12:03:41 AM »

Offline SCeltic34

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7427
  • Tommy Points: 1072
I get the gist of the ruling.

SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because itís a tax

Without tax penalties related to the individual mandate, is it still a tax? Maybe not.

If itís no longer a tax, is it no longer Constitutional? Seemingly not.

Itís a compelling argument, but I donít think Roberts wants any part of that.
But I wonder, did the Republican Congress purposely get rid of the tax so that they could get this ruling? That is what is so bothersome to me. Is this the Republican's party to go around the Supreme Court ruling? I find the whole thing troubling because it effects the poorest and sickest of Americans.

I donít know if theyíre that smart.

I think they wanted to eat their cake and have it too. They didnít have the guts to rescind the popular provisions, but guttingthe individual mandate appeals to young, healthy people.

I agree with you, though: if the entire thing collapses, thatís going to potentially hurt a lot of red statevoters.
frustrating that in a number of media interviews of people in red states where they were asked if the like/dislike Obamacare and the vast majority said they disliked it however when people were asked if they liked the ACA they really liked it --> in the interviews where these people were told Obamacare is the ACA, the 2 most popular reactions (at least the ones shown) were 1) anger/irritation at being shown how ignorant they are on the topic or 2) an argument with the media person that Obamacare isn't the ACA but not based on any actual facts

Obamacare isn't close to perfect but it opened access to healthcare for many who didn't have it.  the fact Reps were running on being the ones who fought for protecting pre-existing conditions shows just how slick they are and how gullible they're base is if they actually believe that.

thing is, I don't know if I should feel a lack of compassion about those who need this insurance yet were foolish enough to vote for candidates that pushed to take away that coverage.

Even further, death of the ACA is going to seriously further hinder access to health care in rural communities - beyond not being insured.  Rural hospitals are known to struggle financially and many in fact have already closed down in recent years.

Very succinctly, hundreds of rural hospitals have long been vulnerable to closure.  For example:
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/673-rural-hospitals-vulnerable-to-closure-5-things-to-know.html

Quote
5. If the 673 vulnerable hospitals were to shut down, 99,000 healthcare jobs in rural communities would be lost, and it would result in an estimated $277 billion loss to the GDP.

The ACA was a lifeline to these hospitals.  It significantly decreased uncompensated care for the states that expanded Medicaid.  States that did expand Medicaid had lower closure rates of their rural hospitals than states that did not.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/study-rollback-of-medicaid-expansion-would-increase-rural-hospital-closures.html

If the ACA dies, many rural folks will lose not just their insurance, but also perhaps what little actual physical access they have to a hospital.  Worse yet, rural communities that rely on their local hospital economically may ultimately face their doom.  Easy way to put it - if the ACA dies, many rural people die along with it.  I mean, you can't make this stuff up.  If only these poor folks knew what they were really voting for when Trump promised to kill Obamacare. 

Trump Republicans at their finest.


Broussard: "Did you call bank?"
Pierce: "I called game."

- Paul Pierce on his game-winning buzzer beater, game 3 EC Semi-finals against the Atlanta Hawks

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2018, 08:29:28 AM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19698
  • Tommy Points: 9018
I get the gist of the ruling.

SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because itís a tax

Without tax penalties related to the individual mandate, is it still a tax? Maybe not.

If itís no longer a tax, is it no longer Constitutional? Seemingly not.

Itís a compelling argument, but I donít think Roberts wants any part of that.
But I wonder, did the Republican Congress purposely get rid of the tax so that they could get this ruling? That is what is so bothersome to me. Is this the Republican's party to go around the Supreme Court ruling? I find the whole thing troubling because it effects the poorest and sickest of Americans.

I donít know if theyíre that smart.

I think they wanted to eat their cake and have it too. They didnít have the guts to rescind the popular provisions, but guttingthe individual mandate appeals to young, healthy people.

I agree with you, though: if the entire thing collapses, thatís going to potentially hurt a lot of red statevoters.
frustrating that in a number of media interviews of people in red states where they were asked if the like/dislike Obamacare and the vast majority said they disliked it however when people were asked if they liked the ACA they really liked it --> in the interviews where these people were told Obamacare is the ACA, the 2 most popular reactions (at least the ones shown) were 1) anger/irritation at being shown how ignorant they are on the topic or 2) an argument with the media person that Obamacare isn't the ACA but not based on any actual facts

Obamacare isn't close to perfect but it opened access to healthcare for many who didn't have it.  the fact Reps were running on being the ones who fought for protecting pre-existing conditions shows just how slick they are and how gullible they're base is if they actually believe that.

thing is, I don't know if I should feel a lack of compassion about those who need this insurance yet were foolish enough to vote for candidates that pushed to take away that coverage.

Even further, death of the ACA is going to seriously further hinder access to health care in rural communities - beyond not being insured.  Rural hospitals are known to struggle financially and many in fact have already closed down in recent years.

Very succinctly, hundreds of rural hospitals have long been vulnerable to closure.  For example:
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/673-rural-hospitals-vulnerable-to-closure-5-things-to-know.html

Quote
5. If the 673 vulnerable hospitals were to shut down, 99,000 healthcare jobs in rural communities would be lost, and it would result in an estimated $277 billion loss to the GDP.

The ACA was a lifeline to these hospitals.  It significantly decreased uncompensated care for the states that expanded Medicaid.  States that did expand Medicaid had lower closure rates of their rural hospitals than states that did not.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/study-rollback-of-medicaid-expansion-would-increase-rural-hospital-closures.html

If the ACA dies, many rural folks will lose not just their insurance, but also perhaps what little actual physical access they have to a hospital.  Worse yet, rural communities that rely on their local hospital economically may ultimately face their doom.  Easy way to put it - if the ACA dies, many rural people die along with it.  I mean, you can't make this stuff up.  If only these poor folks knew what they were really voting for when Trump promised to kill Obamacare. 

Trump Republicans at their finest.
TP for catching an impact of this issue that is very rarely acknowledged. 

I find it befuddling that something like universal healthcare which would benefit all the citizens of this country could be such a partisan issue.  one would think this is an issue both parties could get behind in trying to find a resolution.

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2018, 09:48:43 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1633
  • Tommy Points: 153
If healthcare is a right it should be ensured, not insured. How can you insure a right?

Insurance is a mode of recouping loss and planning contingencies. It is not a proper method for funding a public service.

Insurance companies running our healthcare system is like using casinos to handle all of our personal banking.

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2018, 11:28:44 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Tommy Points: 357
Everyone knew that if you got rid of the mandate, then the whole thing doesn't work.  If you have protection for pre-exisitng conditions without the mandate, people will just wait until they are sick and then sign up for insurance.  If you don't have either, then people show up at the emergency room with no insurance.

This libertarian thing with the mandate is just plain dumb.  The only way that you can eliminate the mandate and have it work is to protect hospitals so that if someone without insurance shows up at the ER in a coma after a car accident, then the hospital is OBLIGATED or REQUIRED to let them die.  Otherwise the cost for the uninsured just gets passed on to the insured.

I actually will amend my take, you can allow people to forego insurance if they have enough money to insure themselves.  That means you need to have enough cash on hand to pay a catastrophic medical bill.  The problem with that is anyone with that much wealth would never be dumb enough to risk it so they would simply buy insurance.

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2018, 12:39:10 PM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1633
  • Tommy Points: 153
This libertarian thing with the mandate is just plain dumb.  The only way that you can eliminate the mandate and have it work is to protect hospitals so that if someone without insurance shows up at the ER in a coma after a car accident, then the hospital is OBLIGATED or REQUIRED to let them die.  Otherwise the cost for the uninsured just gets passed on to the insured.

It's weird that you say there is only one way to make it work (which is death) and then post an alternative that is that the insured cover the cost. It seems like that's backward. The one way it works is to pass along the cost, otherwise... death.  :)

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2018, 02:07:20 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 34807
  • Tommy Points: 5801
I get the gist of the ruling.

SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because itís a tax

Without tax penalties related to the individual mandate, is it still a tax? Maybe not.

If itís no longer a tax, is it no longer Constitutional? Seemingly not.

Itís a compelling argument, but I donít think Roberts wants any part of that.
But I wonder, did the Republican Congress purposely get rid of the tax so that they could get this ruling? That is what is so bothersome to me. Is this the Republican's party to go around the Supreme Court ruling? I find the whole thing troubling because it effects the poorest and sickest of Americans.

I donít know if theyíre that smart.

I think they wanted to eat their cake and have it too. They didnít have the guts to rescind the popular provisions, but guttingthe individual mandate appeals to young, healthy people.

I agree with you, though: if the entire thing collapses, thatís going to potentially hurt a lot of red statevoters.
frustrating that in a number of media interviews of people in red states where they were asked if the like/dislike Obamacare and the vast majority said they disliked it however when people were asked if they liked the ACA they really liked it --> in the interviews where these people were told Obamacare is the ACA, the 2 most popular reactions (at least the ones shown) were 1) anger/irritation at being shown how ignorant they are on the topic or 2) an argument with the media person that Obamacare isn't the ACA but not based on any actual facts

Obamacare isn't close to perfect but it opened access to healthcare for many who didn't have it.  the fact Reps were running on being the ones who fought for protecting pre-existing conditions shows just how slick they are and how gullible they're base is if they actually believe that.

thing is, I don't know if I should feel a lack of compassion about those who need this insurance yet were foolish enough to vote for candidates that pushed to take away that coverage.

Even further, death of the ACA is going to seriously further hinder access to health care in rural communities - beyond not being insured.  Rural hospitals are known to struggle financially and many in fact have already closed down in recent years.

Very succinctly, hundreds of rural hospitals have long been vulnerable to closure.  For example:
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/673-rural-hospitals-vulnerable-to-closure-5-things-to-know.html

Quote
5. If the 673 vulnerable hospitals were to shut down, 99,000 healthcare jobs in rural communities would be lost, and it would result in an estimated $277 billion loss to the GDP.

The ACA was a lifeline to these hospitals.  It significantly decreased uncompensated care for the states that expanded Medicaid.  States that did expand Medicaid had lower closure rates of their rural hospitals than states that did not.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/study-rollback-of-medicaid-expansion-would-increase-rural-hospital-closures.html

If the ACA dies, many rural folks will lose not just their insurance, but also perhaps what little actual physical access they have to a hospital.  Worse yet, rural communities that rely on their local hospital economically may ultimately face their doom.  Easy way to put it - if the ACA dies, many rural people die along with it.  I mean, you can't make this stuff up.  If only these poor folks knew what they were really voting for when Trump promised to kill Obamacare. 

Trump Republicans at their finest.
TP for catching an impact of this issue that is very rarely acknowledged. 

I find it befuddling that something like universal healthcare which would benefit all the citizens of this country could be such a partisan issue.  one would think this is an issue both parties could get behind in trying to find a resolution.
It gets more astounding and even comical because the system that is in place that Obamacare is, was the brainchild of conservatives and first implemented in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney.

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2018, 02:33:45 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19698
  • Tommy Points: 9018
I get the gist of the ruling.

SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare is Constitutional because itís a tax

Without tax penalties related to the individual mandate, is it still a tax? Maybe not.

If itís no longer a tax, is it no longer Constitutional? Seemingly not.

Itís a compelling argument, but I donít think Roberts wants any part of that.
But I wonder, did the Republican Congress purposely get rid of the tax so that they could get this ruling? That is what is so bothersome to me. Is this the Republican's party to go around the Supreme Court ruling? I find the whole thing troubling because it effects the poorest and sickest of Americans.

I donít know if theyíre that smart.

I think they wanted to eat their cake and have it too. They didnít have the guts to rescind the popular provisions, but guttingthe individual mandate appeals to young, healthy people.

I agree with you, though: if the entire thing collapses, thatís going to potentially hurt a lot of red statevoters.
frustrating that in a number of media interviews of people in red states where they were asked if the like/dislike Obamacare and the vast majority said they disliked it however when people were asked if they liked the ACA they really liked it --> in the interviews where these people were told Obamacare is the ACA, the 2 most popular reactions (at least the ones shown) were 1) anger/irritation at being shown how ignorant they are on the topic or 2) an argument with the media person that Obamacare isn't the ACA but not based on any actual facts

Obamacare isn't close to perfect but it opened access to healthcare for many who didn't have it.  the fact Reps were running on being the ones who fought for protecting pre-existing conditions shows just how slick they are and how gullible they're base is if they actually believe that.

thing is, I don't know if I should feel a lack of compassion about those who need this insurance yet were foolish enough to vote for candidates that pushed to take away that coverage.

Even further, death of the ACA is going to seriously further hinder access to health care in rural communities - beyond not being insured.  Rural hospitals are known to struggle financially and many in fact have already closed down in recent years.

Very succinctly, hundreds of rural hospitals have long been vulnerable to closure.  For example:
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/673-rural-hospitals-vulnerable-to-closure-5-things-to-know.html

Quote
5. If the 673 vulnerable hospitals were to shut down, 99,000 healthcare jobs in rural communities would be lost, and it would result in an estimated $277 billion loss to the GDP.

The ACA was a lifeline to these hospitals.  It significantly decreased uncompensated care for the states that expanded Medicaid.  States that did expand Medicaid had lower closure rates of their rural hospitals than states that did not.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/study-rollback-of-medicaid-expansion-would-increase-rural-hospital-closures.html

If the ACA dies, many rural folks will lose not just their insurance, but also perhaps what little actual physical access they have to a hospital.  Worse yet, rural communities that rely on their local hospital economically may ultimately face their doom.  Easy way to put it - if the ACA dies, many rural people die along with it.  I mean, you can't make this stuff up.  If only these poor folks knew what they were really voting for when Trump promised to kill Obamacare. 

Trump Republicans at their finest.
TP for catching an impact of this issue that is very rarely acknowledged. 

I find it befuddling that something like universal healthcare which would benefit all the citizens of this country could be such a partisan issue.  one would think this is an issue both parties could get behind in trying to find a resolution.
It gets more astounding and even comical because the system that is in place that Obamacare is, was the brainchild of conservatives and first implemented in Massachusetts under Republican Mitt Romney.
I know but didn't feel like beating that dead horse here again. 

At some point, the country will move to a national healthcare system where everyone's covered in a manner similar to Medicare.  The monies currently paid by companies and individuals to health insurance would likely just go to the govt as taxes but supplemented by taxes on those not currently paying into the system at all. 

there's likely to be some cost sharing (like with Medicare) and gaps in coverage (like Medicare) which will have insurers selling supplemental coverage plans to cover those gaps and cost sharing (like Medicare)

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2018, 03:46:54 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Tommy Points: 357
This libertarian thing with the mandate is just plain dumb.  The only way that you can eliminate the mandate and have it work is to protect hospitals so that if someone without insurance shows up at the ER in a coma after a car accident, then the hospital is OBLIGATED or REQUIRED to let them die.  Otherwise the cost for the uninsured just gets passed on to the insured.

It's weird that you say there is only one way to make it work (which is death) and then post an alternative that is that the insured cover the cost. It seems like that's backward. The one way it works is to pass along the cost, otherwise... death.  :)

I specifically amended my take.  My point is that anyone with enough money to insure themselves wouldn't do it.  What this seems to relate to is young healthy people who don't want to pay for insurance, at least not until they need it.

My "death" example is the worst case of course.  It could apply to many things where an uninsured shows up at the ER with some form of catastrophic injury or illness and does not have the ability to pay.  Without the mandate, and assuming that they are not in a coma, they could sign up for insurance on the spot and just say "pre-existing condition".

It just doesn't work without mandate and no one has ever provided a answer to my question about the person who decided not to get insurance but has a car accident and needs long term care to stay alive.  Who is going to pay for that?  How is that going to work?  I will tell you the answer, it will be either taxpayers or people who buy insurance (passed along by higher costs/rates).

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2018, 03:57:24 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20481
  • Tommy Points: 976
This libertarian thing with the mandate is just plain dumb.  The only way that you can eliminate the mandate and have it work is to protect hospitals so that if someone without insurance shows up at the ER in a coma after a car accident, then the hospital is OBLIGATED or REQUIRED to let them die.  Otherwise the cost for the uninsured just gets passed on to the insured.

It's weird that you say there is only one way to make it work (which is death) and then post an alternative that is that the insured cover the cost. It seems like that's backward. The one way it works is to pass along the cost, otherwise... death.  :)

I specifically amended my take.  My point is that anyone with enough money to insure themselves wouldn't do it.  What this seems to relate to is young healthy people who don't want to pay for insurance, at least not until they need it.

My "death" example is the worst case of course.  It could apply to many things where an uninsured shows up at the ER with some form of catastrophic injury or illness and does not have the ability to pay.  Without the mandate, and assuming that they are not in a coma, they could sign up for insurance on the spot and just say "pre-existing condition".

It just doesn't work without mandate and no one has ever provided a answer to my question about the person who decided not to get insurance but has a car accident and needs long term care to stay alive.  Who is going to pay for that?  How is that going to work?  I will tell you the answer, it will be either taxpayers or people who buy insurance (passed along by higher costs/rates).
actually the super wealthy often self-insure as premiums are often a waste of money and one for which they can find a better use for the money.

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2018, 04:09:39 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Tommy Points: 357
This libertarian thing with the mandate is just plain dumb.  The only way that you can eliminate the mandate and have it work is to protect hospitals so that if someone without insurance shows up at the ER in a coma after a car accident, then the hospital is OBLIGATED or REQUIRED to let them die.  Otherwise the cost for the uninsured just gets passed on to the insured.

It's weird that you say there is only one way to make it work (which is death) and then post an alternative that is that the insured cover the cost. It seems like that's backward. The one way it works is to pass along the cost, otherwise... death.  :)

I specifically amended my take.  My point is that anyone with enough money to insure themselves wouldn't do it.  What this seems to relate to is young healthy people who don't want to pay for insurance, at least not until they need it.

My "death" example is the worst case of course.  It could apply to many things where an uninsured shows up at the ER with some form of catastrophic injury or illness and does not have the ability to pay.  Without the mandate, and assuming that they are not in a coma, they could sign up for insurance on the spot and just say "pre-existing condition".

It just doesn't work without mandate and no one has ever provided a answer to my question about the person who decided not to get insurance but has a car accident and needs long term care to stay alive.  Who is going to pay for that?  How is that going to work?  I will tell you the answer, it will be either taxpayers or people who buy insurance (passed along by higher costs/rates).
actually the super wealthy often self-insure as premiums are often a waste of money and one for which they can find a better use for the money.

I am not sure if what you state is true or not but I am fine with that if you have the money to self insure.  If you can show that you have the financial resources to self insure, then you can have a waiver for the mandate.  With that though would need to include a clause that once you run out of money, the hospital can stop caring for you.  I am sorry though, I don't think this applies to very many people who would decide not to buy insurance.

They don't allow this for car insurance so it seems unlikely they will try this for health insurance.