SCOTUS: It’s ABC

[Guisslapp]

I'll play along, since I am not as well-schooled on the "constitutionality" of anything related to health care insurance/coverage...

I may be in error, and if so, I know I can count on you to point that out, but I don't recall healthcare being mentioned in the Constitution. I know the "right to bear arms" is mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, yet libs like to challenge my right to own a gun. Perhaps you can post what article/amendment states we have the "right to have healthcare."

Thanks.

The issue isn’t a constitutional right to health care. The question was whether the federal government had the legislative authority to pass the provisions in the ACA, or whether doing so exceeds the limits placed on the legislative branch by the Constitution.

The main issue was whether the individual mandate was Constitutional. Ultimately, the court said that it was constitutional under the taxation clause - but NOT the commerce clause.

Note, if ACA would not have been upheld under the taxation clause, the ACA would be gutted of the individual mandate which would have meant that the law couldn’t pay for the pre-existing conditions. Why would someone pay anything now if they could wait to be sick later?

So that is the crux of the conundrum that Republicans find themselves in today. If you want to take out the ACA, you take out the ability to fund coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only space that leaves for the federal government to guarantee the coverage is to provide an actual new health care entitlement - a Medicare for all. There is no question that they have the Constitutional authority to do that.

Roberts had the Republicans back - they were just too focused on taking it to Obama politically rather than looking at the big picture.

[Guisslapp]

How about this...NO FEDERAL LAWS whatsoever re: healthcare. Leave it up to the states to pass whatever laws they wish. Also, we should be able to buy healthcare across state lines like we can for all other forms of insurance.

In other forms of insurance states agree to recognize each others' laws, with some tweaks as to how lawsuits are litigated, state to state. I suppose my auto insurance is "Texas-based" since my carrier is USAA, HQed in San Antonio, Texas. They apply Louisiana law to all my coverages, auto, homeowners', etc...but when driving in Montana, and there is an accident, the state of Montana recognizes that my insurance, for a Louisiana resident, from a Texas company, is valid.

The ONLY reason healthcare is not treated the same way is POWER!!! plain and simple. The Swampers, the Deep Staters, know one way they can control the masses is to dangle healthcare out there as a carrot.

The federal government has the authority to regulate commerce, thus the right to regulate insurance. If you don’t like that fact, then you will need to change the constitution, because even conservative judges won’t take the other side of that argument.

[dawg80]

Why should someone have any kind of insurance if they can purchase coverage AFTER something happens?

I can cancel all ,my property insurances...then when a hurricane hits, well then! I will buy it and demand they fix the damaged roofs and downed fences, etc... that's pre-existing conditions of the property.

[PawDawg]

Obamacare is not insurance.

[dawg80]

The federal government has the authority to regulate commerce, thus the right to regulate insurance. If you don’t like that fact, then you will need to change the constitution, because even conservative judges won’t take the other side of that argument.

Is not auto and property insurance also commerce?

[Guisslapp]

Is not auto and property insurance also commerce?

Yes, and the Feds can regulate it for the same reason. They delegated authority to states in McCarran-Ferguson Act.

[Guisslapp]

Obamacare is not insurance.

It is quasi-insurance in that it spreads the cost of a risk out on the population but it doesn’t require purchasing coverage in advance (but then you pay a tax for not doing so).

Getting hung up on semantics doesn’t change anything about it.

[Guisslapp]

Why should someone have any kind of insurance if they can purchase coverage AFTER something happens?

I can cancel all ,my property insurances...then when a hurricane hits, well then! I will buy it and demand they fix the damaged roofs and downed fences, etc... that's pre-existing conditions of the property.

Careful, you are making the case for an entitlement, because the majority support coverage for people that have pre-existing conditions before purchasing coverage.

[Guisslapp]

Careful, you are making the case for an entitlement, because the majority support coverage for people that have pre-existing conditions before purchasing coverage.

And even Trump claims to support that.

[PawDawg]

It is quasi-insurance in that it spreads the cost of a risk out on the population but it doesn’t require purchasing coverage in advance (but then you pay a tax for not doing so).

Getting hung up on semantics doesn’t change anything about it.

Funny how you people call changing the definition of a word/product semantics.

It does NOTHING to follow the law of large numbers (spread the risk). Try to sell it as a social program that only a few pay for while others get it for free. See how that works out for you socialists. Obamacare is bait and switch not insurance.

[PawDawg]

And even Trump claims to support that.

Yes he does, but he is wrong. It's NOT insurance.

[dawg80]

Yes, and the Feds can regulate it for the same reason. They delegated authority to states in McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Well, then healthcare needs to be included under this act as well.

All the more reason to fight federal control of healthcare. If we allow the power-mongers to have this vehicle they will continue to wield it as a weapon to garner other measures they want. Take it away from them, sooner rather than later.

I am involved, at the local level, in a similar "fight." Of course, no where near as important as healthcare, but the principle to get positive change is the same. I, and couple of others, are fighting against an entrenched bureaucracy with a much bigger target in mind. I can't reveal the details...yet...but we see how the dominoes will fall if we can get, what appears to be, a simple change made. Our opponents don't even know what our real target is, they are just fighting us on the "surface." Well, in fact, one of our political opponents in the surface battle is actually in our corner in the bigger picture. He's just too narrow-minded to see it.

Gawd! politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Point is, FORCE the powers-that-be away from the Federal-control model into the states' "rights" mode, for healthcare.

[Guisslapp]

Funny how you people call changing the definition of a word/product semantics.

It does NOTHING to follow the law of large numbers (spread the risk). Try to sell it as a social program that only a few pay for while others get it for free. See how that works out for you socialists. Obamacare is bait and switch not insurance.

Thus the tax. That was the point of an individual mandate. Take it out and you pretty much force universal health care or Medicare for all.

Winning this battle guarantees you lose the war.

Again, Obamacare still is in force because of the “tax”. Take that out and it will fall apart. Republicans were correct about that. What they miscalculated, was that coverage for pre-existing conditions has massive populist support and by electing a populist president, he would further promote it.

Taking away this coverage now would be political suicide for Republicans and pretty much assures that the next legislative solution will have to be the one that passes constitutional muster - which is a full blown tax-covered entitlement like universal health care of Medicare for all.

[Guisslapp]

Well, then healthcare needs to be included under this act as well.

All the more reason to fight federal control of healthcare. If we allow the power-mongers to have this vehicle they will continue to wield it as a weapon to garner other measures they want. Take it away from them, sooner rather than later.

I am involved, at the local level, in a similar "fight." Of course, no where near as important as healthcare, but the principle to get positive change is the same. I, and couple of others, are fighting against an entrenched bureaucracy with a much bigger target in mind. I can't reveal the details...yet...but we see how the dominoes will fall if we can get, what appears to be, a simple change made. Our opponents don't even know what our real target is, they are just fighting us on the "surface." Well, in fact, one of our political opponents in the surface battle is actually in our corner in the bigger picture. He's just too narrow-minded to see it.

Gawd! politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Point is, FORCE the powers-that-be away from the Federal-control model into the states' "rights" mode, for healthcare.

Will never happen, in part, thanks to Trump for supporting the notion that people should not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. That particular battle is over.

[PawDawg]

Thus the tax. That was the point of an individual mandate. Take it out and you pretty much force universal health care or Medicare for all.

Winning this battle guarantees you lose the war.

Again, Obamacare still is in force because of the “tax”. Take that out and it will fall apart. Republicans were correct about that. What they miscalculated, was that coverage for pre-existing conditions has massive populist support and by electing a populist president, he would further promote it.

Taking away this coverage now would be political suicide for Republicans and pretty much assures that the next legislative solution will have to be the one that passes constitutional muster - which is a full blown tax-covered entitlement like universal health care of Medicare for all.

The mandate (tax) has been removed by Trump. Nobody who was getting free or low cost coverage has lost coverage. They are getting Medicaid quality service as they were before Obamacare came along to punish the working man who did not have group coverage through their employer or who chose to self insure.

Again, the pre ex clause was around long before Obama and the socialists did their best to destroy the individual health insurance marketplace.