Trump's Full Court Press on healthcare

[Kraken]

Here we go again: Federal judge in TX rules Obamacare unconstitutional. All of it.

Another self-inflicted wound for Republicans. If upheld, this will make Medicare-for-all the issue that shoos in Democrats in '20...after a suitable period of chaos and suffering, that is.

[Daehawk]

Ive never seen a President want to intentionally hurt the American people more than Trump.

[malchior]

If upheld, this will make Medicare-for-all the issue that shoos in Democrats in '20...after a suitable period of chaos and suffering, that is.

From what I've read tonight it almost certainly won't be upheld. The ruling was a shambles legally speaking according to several analysts. If it gets to the Supreme Court which is a big maybe can anyone see Roberts deciding that the mandate getting repealed invalidates the whole law? No way. The whole thing is absurd.

[Holman]

Given the right-wing penchant for projection, I assume the GOP replacement for the ACA is just straight-up Death Panels.

[Fitzy]

Who will appeal? Wouldn’t that normally be the Federal government’s job? But they supported the lawsuit...

Can the other states appeal?

[Exodor]

Who will appeal? Wouldn’t that normally be the Federal government’s job? But they supported the lawsuit...

Can the other states appeal?

Article I read last night quoted the California AG as saying he would appeal.

[Grifman]

If upheld, this will make Medicare-for-all the issue that shoos in Democrats in '20...after a suitable period of chaos and suffering, that is.

From what I've read tonight it almost certainly won't be upheld. The ruling was a shambles legally speaking according to several analysts. If it gets to the Supreme Court which is a big maybe can anyone see Roberts deciding that the mandate getting repealed invalidates the whole law? No way. The whole thing is absurd.

From what I've read, this judge is an extremely partisan hack, who makes little attempt at appearing even handed. As such this ruling was not unexpected. Indeed, it is widely believed that he had already decided a long time ago and only with held his ruling so as to not hurt Republicans in the recent elections 0 which again shows his partisanship.

Most experts, liberal and conservative regard the ruling as absurd, which just shows how badly partisan this judge is. He is clearly ignoring the intent of Congress as explicitly stated when the mandate was repealed. This was always headed to the Supreme Court. I just hope Roberts still has the courage of his convictions to overturn this as he did with his previous decision on Obamacare.

Note: I have a personal stake in this as an early retiree with pre-existing conditions, I am dependent upon Obamacare.

[Grifman]

Who will appeal? Wouldn’t that normally be the Federal government’s job? But they supported the lawsuit...

Can the other states appeal?

The Democrats defended the law in court by hiring lawyers when the admin refused to do so.

[Kraken]

Since the spanking that they took in the midterms is being widely blamed on their opposition to the ACA, I don't imagine most Republicans are gloating over the prospect of stripping 17+ million Grifmans of their health insurance. I hope you guys are right about the partisan SC doing the right thing.

[El Guapo]

If upheld, this will make Medicare-for-all the issue that shoos in Democrats in '20...after a suitable period of chaos and suffering, that is.

From what I've read tonight it almost certainly won't be upheld. The ruling was a shambles legally speaking according to several analysts. If it gets to the Supreme Court which is a big maybe can anyone see Roberts deciding that the mandate getting repealed invalidates the whole law? No way. The whole thing is absurd.

From what I've read, this judge is an extremely partisan hack, who makes little attempt at appearing even handed. As such this ruling was not unexpected. Indeed, it is widely believed that he had already decided a long time ago and only with held his ruling so as to not hurt Republicans in the recent elections 0 which again shows his partisanship.

Most experts, liberal and conservative regard the ruling as absurd, which just shows how badly partisan this judge is. He is clearly ignoring the intent of Congress as explicitly stated when the mandate was repealed. This was always headed to the Supreme Court. I just hope Roberts still has the courage of his convictions to overturn this as he did with his previous decision on Obamacare.

Note: I have a personal stake in this as an early retiree with pre-existing conditions, I am dependent upon Obamacare.

It's unnerving, but the SCOTUS majority that upheld the ACA in 2012 (liberal justices + Roberts) is all still on the court. And if Roberts wasn't inclined to overturn the ACA when the political environment was a lot more favorable to that, and when the legal arguments against it were much stronger than the one in the present lawsuit, it's really hard to see why he would do that now.

I mean, you never know, but seems unlikely.

[Kraken]

This would be amusing if it weren't so sad: Trump's election set off a birth control boom.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital researchers have documented a trend in women’s health that had previously been reported mostly anecdotally: President Trump’s election set off a birth control boom.

In the immediate aftermath of the Nov. 8, 2016, upset election, women rushed to secure long-acting, reversible contraception — the kind that could feasibly last through the duration of a Trump presidency. Compared to the same monthlong period in the previous year, demand for IUDs and other implants spiked 21.6 percent, according to the study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine online Monday.

Trump campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act, which made birth control coverage standard under private employers’ insurance plans, as well as in subsidized care. Since 2013, women have been able to get birth control without copayments.

After the election, with the imminent threat of repeal, reports began surfacing that women were rushing to doctors and clinics seeking IUDs and other implants known as long-acting reversible contraception. Such methods, which have steep up-front costs, provide birth control for years and are considered the most effective method on the market.

[Holman]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.



Seriously. It isn't even "health is temporary, heaven is eternal." It's "You don't need doctors because I've never needed them and I have God."

It's 100% crazy and also just two or four years from being a GOP litmus position.

[Skinypupy]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.

God = My own massive bank account which allows me access to the best healthcare in the world any time I want.

Oh...you poors don't all have that? Guess you'll just need to pray harder then and hope for the best!

[raydude]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.



Seriously. It isn't even "health is temporary, heaven is eternal." It's "You don't need doctors because I've never needed them and I have God."

It's 100% crazy and also just two or four years from being a GOP litmus position.

Just once I'd like to see someone espousing this position go on the attack and ask the interviewer "You don't have health insurance do you? You do?! Let's go f'king cancel it now! I'll wait!"

[LordMortis]

Just once I'd like to see someone espousing this position go on the attack and ask the interviewer "You don't have health insurance do you? You do?! Let's go f'king cancel it now! I'll wait!"

He might not. He's got his. He doesn't need Jesus or Insurance when he's worth millions.

OTOH, let's have the interviewer break his legs and let him wait for God provide him health care with no temporary reprieve.

[GreenGoo]

God prevents your legs from being broken in the first place. Healthcare isn't important because I've never needed it and I would rather die than have someone else help me stay alive is a serious world view, apparently, one that has been espoused here on OO.

It's insane, but here we are.

[Unagi]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.

/devil's advocate:

How is that not entirely true if one is, as one is supposed , to put their full and unquestioning faith in the lord above? Seriously?

[Holman]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.

/devil's advocate:

How is that not entirely true if one is, as one is supposed , to put their full and unquestioning faith in the lord above? Seriously?

Partly it's weird because no significant Christian denomination has -ever- taught that believers don't need health care. "God heals all illnesses" has just never been a thing, no doubt because it is so obviously disproven every day.

It used to be that you had to go to Christian Science or the Jehovah's Witnesses for that, which is why they've always been seen as kind of culty. But apparently there's a small but lately-more-visible trend among certain hardcore Evangelicals to reject traditional medicine as well. I guys Duckbeard is one of these.

Darwin wins again.

[LawBeefaroni]

So what is his son? A heretic?

Doctors sedated Jep Robertson in the intensive care unit. He remained on a ventilator for four days, and even had to be tied down to his bed. Robertson didn’t even remember his mother, who’s known as Miss Kay on the hit show, ABC News has learned.

It's all bullshit. He got his and hates the idea of sharing. God is a nice way of telling the proles to just crawl away and go die quietly.


What he and most people don't understand is that without everyone having paid care there probably wouldn't be nearby facilities open 24 hours ready to save his and his loved ones' lives. There wouldn't be heart surgeons with enough experience to save his duck fat soaked heart. It is in everyone's interest to have a robust, inclusive healthcare system even if they only want it for selfish reasons.

[LordMortis]

What he and most people don't understand is that without everyone having paid care there probably wouldn't be nearby facilities open 24 hours ready to save his and his loved ones' lives. There wouldn't be heart surgeons with enough experience to save his duck fat soaked heart. It is in everyone's interest to have a robust, inclusive healthcare system even if they only want it for selfish reasons.

I don't get why this is completely impossible for so many to understand. I really try to generally be open to discussion but when you hit me like you are discussing from a place of knowledge and authority with things like Tax is Theft or The US is not a Democracy you get exactly one chance at communication before I am done with you and consider you hopeless. How do you engage in discussion when one person accepts ideology for bumperstickers that relies on language prestidigitation as some sort of unquestionable tautology but rejects demonstrably true large picture process flows. I find myself going from open to holding to contempt too quickly for my own liking, so I walk away.

[Unagi]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.

/devil's advocate:

How is that not entirely true if one is, as one is supposed , to put their full and unquestioning faith in the lord above? Seriously?

Partly it's weird because no significant Christian denomination has -ever- taught that believers don't need health care. "God heals all illnesses" has just never been a thing, no doubt because it is so obviously disproven every day.

It used to be that you had to go to Christian Science or the Jehovah's Witnesses for that, which is why they've always been seen as kind of culty. But apparently there's a small but lately-more-visible trend among certain hardcore Evangelicals to reject traditional medicine as well. I guys Duckbeard is one of these.

Darwin wins again.

but if you lived a good Christian life and just let nature take its course, then you will find yourself in Heaven, and that is the end-game goal. So if one truly believed in it, one wouldn't be wrong to just let nature take it's course and win win win.

[pr0ner]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.

/devil's advocate:

How is that not entirely true if one is, as one is supposed , to put their full and unquestioning faith in the lord above? Seriously?

Partly it's weird because no significant Christian denomination has -ever- taught that believers don't need health care. "God heals all illnesses" has just never been a thing, no doubt because it is so obviously disproven every day.

It used to be that you had to go to Christian Science or the Jehovah's Witnesses for that, which is why they've always been seen as kind of culty. But apparently there's a small but lately-more-visible trend among certain hardcore Evangelicals to reject traditional medicine as well. I guys Duckbeard is one of these.

Darwin wins again.

but if you lived a good Christian life and just let nature take its course, then you will find yourself in Heaven, and that is the end-game goal. So if one truly believed in it, one wouldn't be wrong to just let nature take it's course and win win win.

[raydude]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.

/devil's advocate:

How is that not entirely true if one is, as one is supposed , to put their full and unquestioning faith in the lord above? Seriously?

Partly it's weird because no significant Christian denomination has -ever- taught that believers don't need health care. "God heals all illnesses" has just never been a thing, no doubt because it is so obviously disproven every day.

It used to be that you had to go to Christian Science or the Jehovah's Witnesses for that, which is why they've always been seen as kind of culty. But apparently there's a small but lately-more-visible trend among certain hardcore Evangelicals to reject traditional medicine as well. I guys Duckbeard is one of these.

Darwin wins again.

but if you lived a good Christian life and just let nature take its course, then you will find yourself in Heaven, and that is the end-game goal. So if one truly believed in it, one wouldn't be wrong to just let nature take it's course and win win win.

Let's say this is true. Then would you agree that DuckBeard and son are heretics because they actually used modern medicine instead of trying to pray the meningitis away, and therefore not true examples of this belief system?

[Holman]

What he and most people don't understand is that without everyone having paid care there probably wouldn't be nearby facilities open 24 hours ready to save his and his loved ones' lives. There wouldn't be heart surgeons with enough experience to save his duck fat soaked heart. It is in everyone's interest to have a robust, inclusive healthcare system even if they only want it for selfish reasons.

It's almost like everyone benefits--even indirectly--from enhancing the Common Good.

(I once heard a hard-core Ayn Randian argue that actually education was bad because widespread learning made his own knowledge less superior and therefore less valuable to the market.)

[pr0ner]

What he and most people don't understand is that without everyone having paid care there probably wouldn't be nearby facilities open 24 hours ready to save his and his loved ones' lives. There wouldn't be heart surgeons with enough experience to save his duck fat soaked heart. It is in everyone's interest to have a robust, inclusive healthcare system even if they only want it for selfish reasons.

It's almost like everyone benefits--even indirectly--from enhancing the Common Good.

(I once heard a hard-core Ayn Randian argue that actually education was bad because widespread learning made his own knowledge less superior and therefore less valuable to the market.)

That's amazing. And not at all out of line from the thinking I've heard other hardcore Randians espouse.

[Isgrimnur]

Some people would rather rule an empire of dirt than be a part of a thriving community.

[Skinypupy]

Some people would rather rule an empire of dirt than be a part of a thriving community.

Would that let them down? Make them hurt?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[GreenGoo]

Some people would rather rule an empire of dirt than be a part of a thriving community.

Would that let them down? Make them hurt?

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Something something Neil Peart.

I just wanted to be part of the thing.

[Brian]

Pedantic: Except that, if pronounced correctly, Peart (peert) does not rhyme.

[GreenGoo]

Pedantic: Except that, if pronounced correctly, Peart (peert) does not rhyme.

If it helps, I pronounce hurt = hear-tuh and dirt = deer-tuh.

[Victoria Raverna]

Duck Dynasty guy: you don't need healthcare because you have God.

/devil's advocate:

How is that not entirely true if one is, as one is supposed , to put their full and unquestioning faith in the lord above? Seriously?

Partly it's weird because no significant Christian denomination has -ever- taught that believers don't need health care. "God heals all illnesses" has just never been a thing, no doubt because it is so obviously disproven every day.

It used to be that you had to go to Christian Science or the Jehovah's Witnesses for that, which is why they've always been seen as kind of culty. But apparently there's a small but lately-more-visible trend among certain hardcore Evangelicals to reject traditional medicine as well. I guys Duckbeard is one of these.

Darwin wins again.

but if you lived a good Christian life and just let nature take its course, then you will find yourself in Heaven, and that is the end-game goal. So if one truly believed in it, one wouldn't be wrong to just let nature take it's course and win win win.

Let's say this is true. Then would you agree that DuckBeard and son are heretics because they actually used modern medicine instead of trying to pray the meningitis away, and therefore not true examples of this belief system?

Not using modern medicine when it is available is the same as suicide. Suicide = Go To Hell.

So maybe that is part of reason why some "religious crazies" are against healthcare for all. If it is available then it is suicide to not using it. If it is not available, then you can let nature take its course.

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

The Trump administration has told a federal appeals court it wants the entire Affordable Care Act, known as “Obamacare,” struck down.

In a filing Monday with the New Orleans court, the administration said the entire law should be struck as unconstitutional. It’s rare for the Justice Department to decline to defend a federal law, but President Donald Trump has long unsuccessfully sought to repeal the 2010 health care statute.

In June, Trump administration lawyers stopped defending key parts of the law, including its guaranteed access to health insurance for people with pre-existing medical conditions. But the administration had said that the rest of the law could stay.
...
The Justice Department is expected to elaborate on its position in a brief to the appeals court. In a letter, it said the appeals court should affirm a December decision by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas. O’Connor ruled that Congress’ elimination of penalties for not buying health insurance rendered the law unconstitutional.

The ruling rests on a legal analysis that the coverage requirement and its fines remain central to the law. O’Connor noted that the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2012 because the mandate was enforced through fines that passed constitutional muster, since they were levied as taxes.

With the fines gone, the coverage requirement can no longer be considered constitutional, he reasoned, and the entire health law is defective because it can’t be separated from the coverage requirement.

[Grifman]

Thank you Trump for handing the Democrats one of the most potent issues possible for the 2020 election. You obviously didn't learn from 2016.

[Kraken]

Thank you Trump for handing the Democrats one of the most potent issues possible for the 2020 election. You obviously didn't learn from 2016.

Well, he won then, so...

Now Democrats have to resolve their own strategy: tinker with the ACA (as Pelosi would have it), Medicare for All, or Medicare for More. The base and many presidential candidates favor the single-payer approach, but whether as a wholesale replacement or an opt-in expansion is up for grabs. I expect they'll split the baby and go with Medicare-for-More, but there'll be friction getting there.

I personally favor Medicare for All, but the Republicans will surely spin it as "OMG they are taking away your insurance for SOCIALISM!!!! Death panels! Bureaucrats! Care rationing!"

It's not a slam dunk. If it comes down to single-payer vs. nothing, I don't trust voters to make the smart choice. And Republicans are no closer to having a plan of their own than they were last time around.

[Jeff V]

It's not a slam dunk. If it comes down to single-payer vs. nothing, I don't trust voters to make the smart choice. And Republicans are no closer to having a plan of their own than they were last time around.

They really need to have a fully-baked plan to present - one that clearly shows, for example, "if you pay $10,000 per year for your insurance now, with our plan you will save $4,000 per year." It has to be a concrete plan of real cost savings, and then they absolutely have to deliver on that plan. Anything less risks not galvanizing voters to rally to their banner as the "S" word drives off potential indy votes and risks alienating otherwise left-leaning centrists.

[Grifman]

It's not a slam dunk. If it comes down to single-payer vs. nothing, I don't trust voters to make the smart choice. And Republicans are no closer to having a plan of their own than they were last time around.

They really need to have a fully-baked plan to present - one that clearly shows, for example, "if you pay $10,000 per year for your insurance now, with our plan you will save $4,000 per year." It has to be a concrete plan of real cost savings, and then they absolutely have to deliver on that plan. Anything less risks not galvanizing voters to rally to their banner as the "S" word drives off potential indy votes and risks alienating otherwise left-leaning centrists.

There's absolutely no way the Democrats or anyone else can deliver on a promise such as that, short of saying that they will blunt force it by subsidizing everyone so that no one pays "X" - and even then, that will either add to the deficit or have to be funded with tax increases. I don't think either party has any idea how to reduce health care costs - nor do I, for that matter. It would be great if we could put together a commission of experts, but so many people/organizations have a stake in the current system that significant change would be difficult to implement short of a national consensus, which I don't think we will ever get to.

[Jeff V]

But that's the thing, why make it a campaign issue if you can't deliver anything? The elephants already proved rhetoric is a precursor to inaction.

If going the single-payer route, they most certainly can propose a plan that shows what it will mean to people. Variables involved with multi-payers are eliminated. Funding the plan is an integral part of the plan and needs to be laid out as well. If the math doesn't work out and cost per person exceeds the average of what they are paying now, try again or bury the issue.

[LordMortis]

It's not a slam dunk. If it comes down to single-payer vs. nothing, I don't trust voters to make the smart choice. And Republicans are no closer to having a plan of their own than they were last time around.

We're already in that boat, aren't we. The voting populace already insist that someone else is getting mine and ruining my healthcare, right up until taking away that something "from someone else" turns out to take that something from me. And even then, I have even odds of blaming mine being taken from me on someone else getting it. It's nuts, N V T S nuts. I see it my own family and I weep. And you simply can't talk about it. They can't see beyond what is mine, and the rhetoric they subscribe to. An honest conversation can't be had. Or at least I haven't found a way.

[Grifman]

But that's the thing, why make it a campaign issue if you can't deliver anything? The elephants already proved rhetoric is a precursor to inaction.

If going the single-payer route, they most certainly can propose a plan that shows what it will mean to people. Variables involved with multi-payers are eliminated. Funding the plan is an integral part of the plan and needs to be laid out as well. If the math doesn't work out and cost per person exceeds the average of what they are paying now, try again or bury the issue.

There's a lot you can deliver without stupidly specifying what you propose. Firstly and most important, you can already protect what people have and what Republicans seem to want to take away - health insurance for 20 million people that did not use to have it. You can protect pre-existing conditions. You can drive down what people pay (though not what care costs) by resuming the insurance company subsidies (in my state BCBS has said that if these resumed they could reduce premiums by 20%), you could increase the income limit for subsidies so that fewer people face large premiums (Democrats in the House have already proposed this). There's a lot that could be done without promising a specific number like you propose.

[Kraken]

Telling voters that you're going to take away their insurance is a risky proposition. Most who have employer-subsidized insurance like their plans. If you're going to nuke that, you have to be able to tell them what will replace it and how much it will cost. Democrats were treading on shaky ground until Trump said "I'm going to take away your insurance and replace it with something great. I have no idea what. Hey Congress, I command you to write something great now, mkay?"

The dilemma for Republicans is that Obamacare WAS their best plan. I don't think it's possible to design a better market-based model, given that the profit motive drives most of our system's excessive cost. If forced to invent another system based on private insurance, it's likely to look a lot like the ACA.