Big Win for Trump and Co: The ACA (aka Obamacare) ruled unconstitional

The thing is people are largely pretty happy with their employer based insurance, so running on "Hey let's get rid of it" is a losing argument.

Of course because they pay into the premiums.

Also if ACA goes, that will also affect employer based health insurance - things like life time limits and what not will come back, which is not a good thing.

This affects group plans in a tiny tiny fashion, simply changing plans or renegotiating on renewls fixes this(also switching companies resets life time costs), its the people on individual plans that suffer the most with the changes.

where insurance companies would be able to turn people away for cancer treatment based on the fact that they had their tonsils removed when they were 12

Also, write in riders on renewals that don't cover TONS of procedures if they have any correlation to initial condition.

I know you like your employer insurance, my point is solely that to move to national coverage it has to go bye bye.

I also forgot to mention portability, having a group plan ties people to jobs since they can be forced into said position of lose coverage for their family, let's not get into cobra coverage.

Originally posted by BackFire
The thing is people are largely pretty happy with their employer based insurance, so running on "Hey let's get rid of it" is a losing argument.

Also if ACA goes, that will also affect employer based health insurance - things like life time limits and what not will come back, which is not a good thing.

If we could transition directly from ACA to a full single payer system then that'd be fine, but that's not in the cards right now and probably won't be anytime soon. What will happen is that if ACA goes then we'll revert to how it was before ACA, where insurance companies would be able to turn people away for cancer treatment based on the fact that they had their tonsils removed when they were 12. People with pre-existing conditions would be ****ed on the federal level. However, I imagine most heavily blue states would implement similar protections to ACA on a state level so that's something at least.

In the end though this ruling probably will be overturned either in appeals or by the supreme court. The supreme court has already ruled in favor of ACA being constitutional twice now, no reason to think they would change that now.

Wasn't aware of the ACA tear down also possibly affecting EBHI. That's potentially troubling.

I don't share you're faith, the SC is different now and so is the ACA due the Trump Admin's tampering. We're looking at a different game.

The SC isn't really that different. The five judges who ruled that ACA was constitutional are still there.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Of course because they pay into the premiums.

This affects group plans in a tiny tiny fashion, simply changing plans or renegotiating on renewls fixes this(also switching companies resets life time costs), its the people on individual plans that suffer the most with the changes.

Also, write in riders on renewals that don't cover TONS of procedures if they have any correlation to initial condition.

I know you like your employer insurance, my point is solely that to move to national coverage it has to go bye bye.

I also forgot to mention portability, having a group plan ties people to jobs since they can be forced into said position of lose coverage for their family, let's not get into cobra coverage.

Just to clarify, I don't actually get employer-based insurance, I buy it myself on the marketplace. But I know people who do have it usually like it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, really. It is true that in order to move to a nationwide system we will need to get rid of it, and the downside that it ties you to your employer and makes changing jobs/losing jobs worse than it needs to be is also very true. I myself would prefer a full single-payer system to what we have now. My point was simply that packaging that argument to appeal to people who are generally pretty happy with their employer-based coverage is going to be difficult if not impossible.

Which was one of Obama's points.

Originally posted by BackFire
The SC isn't really that different. The five judges who ruled that ACA was constitutional are still there.

My bad, true enough. I still don't share your faith though; hopefully I'm wrong.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's like burning the parachute you're currently using and there isn't a soft body of water for you to dive in. Have the pool below you built first, before doing the stunt.

You mean a transition period?

How about no. "2021, medicare for all. ACA disappears."

No transition period. Burn it to the ground. 😠

Originally posted by BackFire
If we could transition directly from ACA to a full single payer system then that'd be fine, but that's not in the cards right now and probably won't be anytime soon.

Which is both true and sad. Sometimes, I detest my ignorant, obstinate, fellow Americans for this.

I disagree with the idea this is a win for Trump. Merely because I find it highly doubtful this ruling won't be struck down via appeal.

Originally posted by Surtur
I disagree with the idea this is a win for Trump. Merely because I find it highly doubtful this ruling won't be struck down via appeal.

You're just saying that and hoping it's struck down because you stand to lose your County Care, which is a facet of Obamacare.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're just saying that and hoping it's struck down because you stand to lose your County Care, which is a facet of Obamacare.

I'm saying it because it's true...it's why I'm not worried. It's also why it's silly for Trump to celebrate.

Trump has renewed his vow to completely destroy the ACA, all facets about it, which includes the preexisting conditions clause.

He’s circumventing congress and going through the courts, if it passes in the lower courts it will be shot up to the Supreme Court and he could potentially get his win there. Rejoice Trumpers, this is what you voted for.

What will happen to disabled people in the US Rob?

If the ACA is torn down completely as a is the plan without something else ready to go, we’ll probably go back to how it was before, millions of uninsured and insurance companies turning away or pricing out people they deem too risky to offer coverage. eg The elderly couple on a fixed income, the guy with the previous back injury, the baby born with a faulty heart. From an insurance standpoint, those people cost money, as their monthly premiums won’t cover their medical expenses.

It's inhuman, more like what I see out here than in the first world.

Then again, mega corporations like insurance companies always do the right thing now when left to their devices, always, so meh.

Originally posted by Robtard
If that's all you want to focus on, cool, you do that.

I'd rather not go without health insurance. eg my wife a month ago had a severe allergic reaction, she ended up in the emergency room and had to stay overnight (never figured out what was the cause even after a battery of test), that one night stay cost $19,871.16. We only had to pay $500.00 of that out of pocket. Now imagine being someone who that happens too and you've lost your insurance. No thank you. That's what 12million people on the ACA have to worry about now.

Sorry to hear that, sounds awful. But we have insurance through employers, why we only paid a nothing $500.00 out of pocket compared to the almost $20K for a one-night hospital stay.

I think tax payers end up eating those costs, why it's stupid to not just have a decent universal healthcare.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
What will happen to disabled people in the US Rob?

Disabled people will still use Medicaid just like before, during, and after ACA.

Don't buy into the fear-mongering that Democrats have been propagandizing to the world about the ACA.

The ACA increased medical costs (faster than what it was before). It also increased the out of pocket costs for the average American.

Here's the kicker:

...in the first couple of years after Obamacare really kicked in — 2014 and '15 — out-of-pocket payments dropped by an average of $74.

...meanwhile, the insurance premiums that households paid rose by an average of $232.

And this is what they concluded from their outdated study:

I have to admit this is a little underwhelming. We have devoted so much attention and so much political wrangling to Obamacare over the last years, and this study is telling us that at least in the first couple of years, and in terms of household costs, it's been something of a wash.

I feel the same way. What Dr. Goldman, the lead researcher, commented about that is, look, the ACA was the biggest reform of the health care system since 1965, and to get passed it had to involve a lot of political compromise:

'It was nowhere near as radical as it could have been,' she said. 'I think that a single-payer plan, for example, which many Democrats on the more progressive side of the party were advocating for, would have been much more effective in reducing medical spending by all American households, certainly for people in poor and low-income households — no co-payments, no deductibles, no premiums."

https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2018/01/23/obamacare-household-spending

What I've been saying.

Medicare for all.

Here are the findings of a very large research group's look into the ACA over time:

Today, 45 percent of U.S. adults ages 19 to 64 are inadequately insured — nearly the same as in 2010 — though important shifts have taken place.

Compared to 2010, many fewer adults are uninsured today, and the duration of coverage gaps people experience has shortened significantly.

Despite actions by the Trump administration and Congress to weaken the ACA, the adult uninsured rate was 12.4 percent in 2018 in this survey, statistically unchanged from the last time we fielded the survey in 2016.

More people who have coverage are underinsured now than in 2010, with the greatest increase occurring among those in employer plans.

People who are underinsured or spend any time uninsured report cost-related problems getting care and difficulty paying medical bills at at higher rates than those with continuous, adequate coverage.

Federal and state governments could enact policies to extend the ACA’s health coverage gains and improve the cost protection provided by individual-market and employer plans.

And as you can read, they are definitely anti-Trump.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2019/feb/health-insurance-coverage-eight-years-after-aca

Here's what it boils down to:

The very poor have better access to healthcare plans. But the costs on their out of pocket costs are so high that any critical life event makes the coverage meaningless. $1,000 out of pocket for a single mother of 2 who makes $20k a year is too much. It's retarded that she should pay anything like that.

Most Americans, who get their insurance through employers, were harmed by the ACA. That's 158-ish million Americans.

Insurance companies benefited the most from ACA.

Kill ACA and implement Medicare for All, ASAP. Medicare for All would be a better version of NHS if implemented effectively.

In regards to disabled people, that's only if they qualify for Social Security Disability Insurance. It also take two years for it to kick in after they're entitled.