ACA About To Get Struck Down?

[York Minster]

I'm guessing it's 5-4 against the individual mandate. Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson-Hillary Clinton-and probably now Obama failed on health reform.

[fluffmoln]

It's constitutional, baby.

[York Minster]

Yay! Everything upheld except the Medicaid expansion on the states. I'll take it! Amazing, was expecting the worst.

[Danimal]

Now the fun begins. The court also ruled that the gov can't compel the states to participate. If the big states like Texas opt out, a trillion in funding for the ACA disappears
One also must remember Republicans took the House in 2010 on a wave of opposition to the bill. The ACA has consistently proven to be unpopular with the public over the past two years according to every poll. That anti-ACA animus is now in play for the November elections.
To top it all off, the individual mandate was written and sold as not a tax most especially by the President but the SCOTUS has upheld it by interpreting it as a tax.
All told, politically the President would have been better off if it was struck down.

[glennjridge]

I dont care. I'm going to ride this "I'm healthy" thing for as long as I can and then worry about it.

[boyjohn]

Now the fun begins. The court also ruled that the gov can't compel the states to participate. If the big states like Texas opt out, a trillion in funding for the ACA disappears
One also must remember Republicans took the House in 2010 on a wave of opposition to the bill. The ACA has consistently proven to be unpopular with the public over the past two years according to every poll. That anti-ACA animus is now in play for the November elections.
To top it all off, the individual mandate was written and sold as not a tax most especially by the President but the SCOTUS has upheld it by interpreting it as a tax.
All told, politically the President would have been better off if it was struck down.

Have to agree with most of this. The only thing we can hope for is to get Obama reelected and a Dem congress back. Then maybe we can strengthen the bill going forward and hope for one of the right-wing nuts on the Supreme Court to die.

The ACA may be unpopular as a whole, but if you poll the provisions separately, almost all of them are popular. The challenge for Obama and the Dems is to get the message out over the FOX news/Koch Brothers/Karl Rove propaganda machine, which is not going to be easy.

[York Minster]

Now the fun begins. The court also ruled that the gov can't compel the states to participate. If the big states like Texas opt out, a trillion in funding for the ACA disappears
One also must remember Republicans took the House in 2010 on a wave of opposition to the bill. The ACA has consistently proven to be unpopular with the public over the past two years according to every poll. That anti-ACA animus is now in play for the November elections.
To top it all off, the individual mandate was written and sold as not a tax most especially by the President but the SCOTUS has upheld it by interpreting it as a tax.
All told, politically the President would have been better off if it was struck down.

The court only ruled that the congress can't compel the states to expand Medicaid. This is not wholey insignificant of course. However, the ACA is an extremely wide-ranging set of laws, Ten Titles long. It has such important mandates as insurance companies not being allowed to discriminate for pre-existing conditions (upheld by the court), and less important legislation like nutrition labeling for restaurants. It even has very important legislation hardly related to health care at all.

I can not agree that the President would have been better off with the law being struck down. He staked much of his time and energy of his first term passing this legislation. Had the whole thing been scraped, it could have been seen as a total waste of time by Obama. It's more likely that health care will now be LESS of an issue through election season, as the court has given their approval. And yes, perhaps future federal programs will be more narrowed now that the commerce clause is taken out of play. However, the 14th amendment has been overused anyway.

[Deschanel]

"Ten Titles long". Yeah, so what? Yes, ACA is wide-ranging and comprehensive. Reading is hard! I find it so weird when civilians opine on the scale or length of laws or judicial decisions, as if they had half a f*** of knowing what they're talking about. "an extremely wide-ranging set of laws". And your point is? You sound like you're parroting the propaganda of evil idiots, "Government is too big!".

ACA is wide-ranging and comprehensive because it's addressing an actual and real national crisis in our AMERICAN FREEDOM ideal in the free-market system idea that health-care insurers to not be the vicious, nasty, rapaciously greedy jackals they really are. You're complaining for some reason that ACA is wide-ranging and perhaps, "long"? Oh boo hoo for you. Sounds and smells like righty propaganda that government is just "Too big" and needs to be drowned in the bathtub, per Grover Norquist and all hid Republican slaves who signed his del with the devil.

"Big government" is not the problem. Rapacious corporate greed and our unbelievably f*** cruel system of the "free market" -corporations- leaving 40 million people uninsured and without access to health care is. I'm one of those 40 million. Yesterday's decision gives me a mere glimmer of hope. But oh, "Obamacare" is so long and complicated! And you personally give a f*** about all the paperwork for "the states". How concern-trollish.

[boyjohn]

I like the passion, but I read his comment as being on the same side as you are.

I will always have respect for President Obama for not punting on the whole thing. I would rather have single payer and get rid of the insurance companies altogether, but at least it is a step in the right direction.

It's really bizarre that the republicans keep calling Obama a socialist, etc, when he has been about as centrist as possible, always trying to find common ground, and pissing off the left by trying to compromise too much.

[Deschanel]

You're right, Boyjohn, I think. Sometimes you have to read between the lines though.

"The law/documents/judicial decisions are so very long and wide-ranging! It's all so bewildering to me as a concerned citizen! 1,700 pages, can you believe it?". Arguments and complaint like this are almost always right-wing ones.

The size and scale of governments are historically irrelevant. The Roman Empire functioned for five hundred years with a vast , wide-ranging bureacracy and civil service. Ditto the British Empire, or the Vatican and The Roman Catholic church worldwide. Size and scale of "government" is an absolutely neutral factor, neither good nor bad, and has no effect on the efficacy of what it set out for.

Complaining about "big government" and the freaking page-length of judicial decisions are purely right-wing tropes, or those of the easily duped. Size and scale of national governments don't matter. We're a nation of over 300 million people, over a vast continent and chunk of Earth. Yes, we're a complex society. Scapa's complaint sounds like a trollish whine, to me. It has absolutely nothing to do with him or his life, his complaint that important judicial decisions or presidential initiatives like ACA aren't tweet-like. So many pages! all those poor states! So long, who can read all of that? Give me a freaking break there. There's no reason he should give a f***, "Concern troll" is totally apt here.

[boyjohn]

ya, it's a long-running tactic for the right to talk about how everything is too complicated and that we should just do nothing. (except for lowering the taxes on millionaires and corporations some more). And, oh those "job-killing" regulations lol. Democrats have the right ideas on almost every issue (although i do consider tort-reform something worthwhile in looking into), but the right's talking points are just easier articulate to the masses.

[York Minster]

"Ten Titles long". Yeah, so what? Yes, ACA is wide-ranging and comprehensive. Reading is hard! I find it so weird when civilians opine on the scale or length of laws or judicial decisions, as if they had half a f*** of knowing what they're talking about. "an extremely wide-ranging set of laws". And your point is? You sound like you're parroting the propaganda of evil idiots, "Government is too big!".

ACA is wide-ranging and comprehensive because it's addressing an actual and real national crisis in our AMERICAN FREEDOM ideal in the free-market system idea that health-care insurers to not be the vicious, nasty, rapaciously greedy jackals they really are. You're complaining for some reason that ACA is wide-ranging and perhaps, "long"? Oh boo hoo for you. Sounds and smells like righty propaganda that government is just "Too big" and needs to be drowned in the bathtub, per Grover Norquist and all hid Republican slaves who signed his del with the devil.

"Big government" is not the problem. Rapacious corporate greed and our unbelievably f****** cruel system of the "free market" -corporations- leaving 40 million people uninsured and without access to health care is. I'm one of those 40 million. Yesterday's decision gives me a mere glimmer of hope. But oh, "Obamacare" is so long and complicated! And you personally give a f*** about all the paperwork for "the states". How concern-trollish.

God-f***-lord Deschanel. Settle. The. Hell. Down.

I AM ON YOUR SIDE, and you come and attack one (reasonable) comment I made. The ACA IS very complicated. I recommend the dry but thorough read Inside National Health Reform: http://www.amazon.com/Inside-National-H ... e+care+act

This book gives a detailed history of the legislation and runs down all the titles and subtitles and pretty much every little nook and cranny. I think the ACA is misunderstood largely on both the left and the right, there is a whole lot going on in it. But I don't say that to mean I don't support it. It's kind of a big patchwork mess, but it's about the damn best we've got at this point, and many of the provisions are really necessary (as Deschanel so loudly and bitchely pointed out).

[Deschanel]

Don't tell me to settle down. Yes, "The ACA is complicated". YOU are the one who brought that up as some sort of problem. Instead of a triumph for some fairness in this going-to shit country of ours.

"Bitcheley" (sic). Yes, you are a freak, telling me to go pore over a thousand-page e-book like a competent lawyer, rather than shutting the f*** up about how "complicated" yesterday's ruling was. You know what else is complicated? Our fuct health-care system, and the takeoff and landing of airplanes 6,000 times a day all over the globe. It's "complicated". What the f*** are you bitching at me for again? Yes, legislation is complicated. You're the one bitching about that here. "Oh, it's so complicated, so many pages!" Give me a break.

[York Minster]

Don't tell me to settle down. Yes, "The ACA is complicated". YOU are the one who brought that up as some sort of problem. Instead of a triumph for some fairness in this going-to shit country of ours.

"Bitcheley" (sic). Yes, you are a freak, telling me to go pore over a thousand-page e-book like a competent lawyer, rather than shutting the f*** up about how "complicated" yesterday's ruling was. You know what else is complicated? Our fuct health-care system, and the takeoff and landing of airplanes 6,000 times a day all over the globe. It's "complicated". What the f*** are you bitching at me for again? Yes, legislation is complicated. You're the one bitching about that here. "Oh, it's so complicated, so many pages!" Give me a break.

As you get furtherly (sic) drunkles (sic), your replies become less relevant to anyone but yourself. So, as my last statement here to you: The book is helpful for anyone wanting to know more about the law. And it does take awhile to sort through it to get the full impact of all the legislation. My father works in health systems research, and even his couple hour powerpoint presentation about the ACA doesn't really go into enough detail.

The book is not 1000 pages, it's not even 500 pages (and who said e-book?). If you actually cared to be sober, and actually open the amazon page in your browser, you would see it's 360 pages, and it has 11 reviews, all of which are 5 stars (and this for a book that is admittingly dry).

[gregf]

The US progressives often look at Aus for health care models.

We have a levy, I think of 4%, on income tax that pays for Medicare.
Medicare then pays for basic medical and hospital needs.
If you are on a low income, then Medicare still provides that.
If you are on a high income you can top up with private insurance.

I heard the Dems tried to get this model first but the conservatives knocked it down, because in political terms, it would be simpler and work better. They forced the Obama package to look more unweildy, so it would be easier to fight. Sad mess we are in ay.

We also have a system that subsidises drug/medicine also. If drugs costs say $50 then you pay $25 over the counter and the goverment pays $25 to the chemist(drug store). This works well but because it limits drug costs, the US drug companies hate it and are working with our conservatives to destroy it. Ay, a sad world.