Obamacare survives

Along with many more citizens who have health insurance.

Everyone knew the insurance companies would make out like bandits under the current incarnation of Obamacare.

Allan

I’m OK with this ruling solely because it means there’s slightly less chance for the left to completely wreck our healthcare system and replace it with something even worse.

Whether something is constitutional or not is not determined by the terminology used to describe it.

What’s unConstitutional about it now?

Mmmmmmm

How about fixing Obamacare instead of trying to eliminate it?

Another rhetorical question, we should already know why. :eyes:

1 Like

So wait . .

Your saying we DON’T need to pack the supreme court to get rulings that Liberals like?

1 Like

How about not pushing broke assed legislation through in the first place.

Another rhetorical question, we should already know why. :eyes:

1 Like

Yeah…but for how long??

:grinning:! Yay!

A health insurance card many physicians don’t even accept survives!

Anyone know about some waterfront property in Arizona up for sale?

Best response in the thread. Lol.

Just wait til Trump gets back in office in August…lol

2 Likes

Well yeah…Obamacare spawned as a Republican idea…all it does is pool folks without insurance access through work together for more favorable pricing just like employers do for their employees…

But its still running through the insurance companies

There are a few.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/521-S-Marina-Dr-Gilbert-AZ-85233/8178357_zpid/

2 Likes

So basically the change the GOP made to unfang Obamacare is the basis for the SC saying no harm is caused?

Seeing home prices in other areas hurts my little san franciscan heart.

1 Like

Back on the old site I was ripped to bits for buying health care stock. One of the best hedges of my investing path well that and buying stock in companies that get subject to the mindless boycotts. Buy the stock the day after some talking head has a meltdown and, on average, six weeks later sell at a handsome profit.

I find it funny. With the mandate, there might have been harm. Republicans shoot themselves in the foot. Again.

It’s like every other insurance.

I had a doctor I loved.

Company coverage switched from blue cross to United healthcare.

Bye bye doc.

Allan

1 Like

Pretty bizarre lawsuit Texas brought.

First, the GOP complained about the ACA because of the mandate. They sued and went to the SCOTUS. Dems said the mandate was a tax and SCOTUS agreed.

Until 2017, the ACA was in place. Then Trump and the GOP eliminated the mandate.

And the ACA still worked just fine.

Which is great!

Or not. Texas then argued that the mandate was “baked in” to the ACA, and without the mandate the whole act was null and void and so was the prior SCOTUS ruling.

Which is a fairly clever argument, if you cannot eliminate a program (through SCOTUS) you don’t like, just change any part of it and then sue to eliminate the act again, because the prior SCOTUS ruling is now null and void.

The problem here is that eliminating the mandate was the most obtrusive part of the Act. By eliminating all penalties they eliminated any chance to argue that the act was injurious to anyone. It provides benefit or it doesn’t, but it doesn’t harm anyone by existing.