Obamacare & The Supreme Court - Round 2

In the meantime its probably best to trust Hoops who make up quotes, statisitics, and facts about the law.

Well you may be right if you consider Big Pharma, the Insurance Industry and the AMA "Bipartisan". We ended up with one of the most divisive pieces of legislation in our nation's history that the majority of Americans did not and do not support. So, I'd say that's a big fail right there. President Obama should have rejected the completely partisan vote and pushed the reset button....Taken his case to the American People instead of settling for this hodgepodge that you claim he didn't even want. This was perhaps his biggest mistake in office....

And as to medical costs...there is such massive waste, inefficiency and bloat in the current healthcare system that I can't believe you are really happy with the way it operates. Why does a knee replacement cost $100,000 here and for the exact same standard of treatment cost $9,000 in Belgium? Why do we spend 40% or more of our medical dollars in the last 2 miserable months of life? Why can't insurance companies compete across state lines? Why do we allow big pharma to manipulate the patent system and charge Americans for all their world wide R&D? Why can't I get Internet Mail Order Prescriptions from Certified Suppliers outside the US? Why after all this money and effort are low income patients STILL using emergency care as primary care?

You may pretend ACA 'fixed' our broken healthcare system. It did insure more people. It did cover pre-existing conditions. It did make some improvements that most people support. That could have been done with a few paragraph amendment to existing law. What people really want is the same level of care cheaper....lots cheaper. There is no question that we're smart enough to make that happen....It's just the two sides won't work together to do it because of petty partisan politicians....and the lobbyists who own them.

Your response reeks of 'Well it's better than it was'. My point is that it's no where near good enough and we should demand both parties work together to fix it. Maybe they'll get their opportunity.

Peoples, please obey DonDiego's wishes, since he owns this thread. Remember how he got "disappointed" last time his instructions weren't followed?

So....back to ramifications! You're welcome.

Democrats have been pushing to make the law better since it was passed. The other party has demanded we go back to the train wreck we had before. So while AlanLeroy pretends the debate is something other than it is - reality continues to reign supreme in the real world where real bodies in government have voting records to demonstrate their positions on issues.

Republicans have never once attempted to work to make Obamacare better. And they've never voted to wipe Obamacare clean and replace it with "a few paragraphs to existing law". They've voted 50+ times to go back to the Stone Ages. And throughout all of it we've had to listen to Alan's nauseating narration of bi-partisan dysfunction in Washington. Democrats moved us forward and have advocated we build onto that progress further. Republicans want no part of it. Thats not my opinion. Thats a summary of health care voting in Congress since 2009

It's frustrating trying to reason with someone who puts words in my mouth.

Well, yes, that is my position. It is better than it was. That should be the standard for all things we do.

Is Obamacare ideal? Hell no. But is it a marked improvement? Hell yes. And sometimes, that's good enough for me, so long as we remain committed to doing even better.

Did the American Revolution end slavery? No.
Did it give women the vote? No.
Did it produce a cure for polio or put a man on the moon? No.

Was it a good idea? Hell yeah.

Obamacare is the health insurance program that "centrist" conservative Democrats like Senators Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson wanted.

Liberals wanted a much simpler single-payer program, with something like a buy-in to our very efficient national socialized health insurance program known as Medicare.

alanleroy, could you PLEASE inform me of something? What is the Republican plan?

I really wish for the same thing. The gridlock is entirely ridiculous, I would really like to see some kind of change. I honestly have no idea if I'm going to vote for either of the two, not impressed with anyone(I know one I am absolutely not voting for). I swear I lean more and more towards Ind./ Libertarian all the time, pretty tired of the party line crap, same old, same old.

I always liked your ideas on healthcare, I never forgot "AlanLeroys healthcare laws" when you posted them a while ago.

DonDiego has no "wishes" about this thread.
DonDiego initiated this thread; if a thread can be said to be owned this thread is owned by Mr. Curtis.

DonDiego offers guidance to try and keep a thread on topic, . . . instead of turning it into simplistic, even nonsensical, political propagandists' dreams of rehashing everything about everything which he/she hates about one Party or the other. Such guidance usually doesn't work.

DonDiego is often disappointed; forkushV need not concern himself with DonDiego's feelings.

DonDiego notes that no one has objected to the logical decision process available to the Supreme Court, which DonDiego presented, addressing what is actually written into the Law. He doesn't expect anyone to, . . . anymore.

If Obeymecare is repealed our premiums will go to $4000 a month, that's how you liberals think. If the media prints it its gospel. Even though my premiums were one third the price before Obeymecare, but who cares about facts.

DonDiego opines that if a Federal program is not being administered in accordance with the legislation establishing the program it should be challenged.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the provision for subsidies being granted to enrollees on the Federal Exchange, thereby inflicting additional taxes on citizens and astonishing increases in health insurance premiums, it will be because either

i. the Law was poorly drafted (i.e. legislators' incompetence)

or

ii. the Law was drafted as intended to compel States to establish State Exchanges to obtain the subsidies and several States avoided establishing State Exchanges anyway. (i.e. bad judgements on somebodies' parts)

[DonDiego leaves as an exercise for the reader to decide who is to blame for such an unpleasant outcome, . . . if the reader feels setting blame is important.]

[DonDiego makes no prediction as to how the case will be decided. Nothing the Supreme Court may decide will surprise him.]

[DonDiego makes no prediction/recommendation as to how the Law or the implementation of the Law should be changed to insure the Law and its implementation are compatible. It's not his job.]