DOJ Asking Courts to Strike down ACA, Protections for Preexisting Conditions, etc

[Wermys]

I know, I have been working in healthcare since 2001. I have seen the effects of before Medicare-D and the ACA. Removing the ACA is the cruelest most inhumane thing anyone can possibly do. It will result in DEATHS. Free market is fine and can even work in a healthcare environment but this is an inelastic market. By removing the mandate you are making a death sentence for 10000's of people. What happened before the ACA was law was that if someone got sick with any type of illness. There was a pre existing clause that was in effect. What that meant was that if you had diabetes, you lost your job. You have no way to pay for insulin at all after your cobra runs out. If you could afford cobra that is. No one was REQUIRED to sell you a policy. Inusurers are there to make money which is fair, but they are a business not a charity. If they can further there profit motive they will. And healthy patients are great for profits while unhealthy ones hit the bottom line. So what is a business to do to be more profitable? Kick the unhealthy ones out and not insure them. Further removing the mandate makes healthcare more expensive overall becuase the risk pool is smaller and buying power of each insured group is also smaller. This isn't like buying a fucking car. You can survive without a car, but you can't survive with access to MS medications or insulin, or Aids medications or a variety of other medications. Stripping the aca in total and invalidating it is so inhumane that it boggles my mind that anyone can advocate for the complete repeal.

[MoanaLisa]

Barr is having quite a week isn't he?

[Zaydin]

Barr is having quite a week isn't he?

Like I said, it's pretty much the worst thing Trump could have done since it gives Democrats something to rally around and clobber Republicans with while Republicans are going to be running around like chickens with their heads cut off because they cannot count on Trump to come up with any sort of cohesive strategy or his inept administration to lay out a proposal for the 'replace' part of their 'repeal and replace' malarkey that could be treated as a serious one.

Of course, there are a few reasons for that. One is that the serious policy wonks who could draft a serious proposal don't want to get anywhere near this crooked administration since it's radioactive and they don't want to ruin their reputation and careers by working for Trump. Second is that the die-hard cult that worships Trump and is the only group that Trump shows interest in representing don't WANT a 'replace'.

They've somehow convinced themselves for-profit healthcare is a great idea and that our healthcare system was the fine the way it was, even though we lead the developed world for things like infant mortality rates, high costs with poor results, and so on. And you point out that red states have the highest rates for infant mortality, teen pregnancies and repeat teen pregnancies and they go into denial.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a complete fallacy that government intervention is needed. People have friends and families that can help them. There are also insurance companies. There are also churches. The ACA was 100% unneeded and unconstitutional.

So if government intervention is unnecessary, when is the GOP going to start opposing the bailouts Trump wants for farmers that he's hurting with his pointless trade war?

After all, in your own words, government intervention in the market is unnecessary. These farmers have families and friends who can help them with their reduced income due to reduced exports thanks to retaliatory tariffs and just outright canceled sales overseas, after all.

[AeneasBK]

Socialised Healthcare is pointless and massively wasteful without draconian authority over lifestyle. As such I'm not a fan.

[Orbitus]

Socialised Healthcare is pointless and massively wasteful without draconian authority over lifestyle. As such I'm not a fan.

Funny, I don't think England, Canada, Sweden, Denmark or any other country tells you what you can and cannot eat. I mean, Canadians main line maple syrup, aka a joke, but still I don't think any country tells people what they can and cannot eat.

[Felya]

Funny, I don't think England, Canada, Sweden, Denmark or any other country tells you what you can and cannot eat. I mean, Canadians main line maple syrup, aka a joke, but still I don't think any country tells people what they can and cannot eat.

US has it after 65...

[Daelak]

Barr is having quite a week isn't he?

A republican loyalist doing the bidding of a republican president. Shielding from the public a thousand+ page report about the unethical behaviors and degradation of the office of the presidency, and doing the bidding of the conservative ideologues in congress who ensure their large donors get a return on their investment. Fuck them.

[Hilhen7]

His campaign promise was to get rid of the ACA and put in something better. We've haven't seen hide nor hair of this better healthcare of his or Republicans. It won't sit well with his base when their healthcare vanishes.

- - - Updated - - -



Has $20,000 surgery.
Goes to church, friends, and family.
Needs $19,678.

Almost there!

Only 20,000? That's on the low end lol

[Grapemask]

I love how all of this has evolved over time.

First Republicans hated any sort of government healthcare and promised to repeal it.

Then, they finally had the power to repeal it - literally only needed a simple majority, which they had, and the presidential power to sign it, which they had - and they could not repeal it.

Then they promised to replace it, because government healthcare is important. But a replacement has never materialized in even the vaguest shape from Republicans.

Now, Trump's administration is pushing to repeal it entirely, and Republicans are trying to defend it because they can't figure out how to replace it. I could die laughing from this part. No matter what pisses me off about Trump, I just have to think back to the time that Republicans spent 8 years attacking a healthcare proposal only to end up defending it from their own party.

Trump is the result of how well Fox News messaging has worked, and its to the detriment of the party it worked to help. He has become so indoctrinated by the Fox Gospel that he can't even hear his party trying to explain reality to him. It's so god damn precious.

[Zan15]

Socialised Healthcare is pointless and massively wasteful without draconian authority over lifestyle. As such I'm not a fan.

50 years after medicare started, and the world has not ended or changed in this country....

[Edge-]

50 years after medicare started, and the world has not ended or changed in this country....

And it's a beloved program that even conservatives support, even if many don't realize it's evil socialized health insurance.

[Zan15]

It's a complete fallacy that government intervention is needed. People have friends and families that can help them. There are also insurance companies. There are also churches. The ACA was 100% unneeded and unconstitutional.

Totally unconstitutional like Medicare….


Now that the mandate is gone really what is the difference?

Funny cause you cannot even opt out of paying Medicare taxes if you work.

But hey.... legal language huh?

[zenkai]

Ongoing in; The Most Neo Liberal Government Ever.

The Justice Department has now announced that it will not defend any part of the Affordable Care Act. If it has its way, the entire ACA should fall.
Justice Department now says courts should strike the entire ACA

This is from an administration that claims to support protections for people with preexisting conditions. This is from an administration that claims to care about the plight of the uninsured. This is from an administration that has a duty to defend the law.


The Justice Department now says the courts should strike down the entire Affordable Care Act — not just its protections for pre-existing conditions. The department signaled its new, broader position in a legal filing Monday, part of a lawsuit challenging the law's individual insurance mandate.

Why it matters: A ruling striking down the entire ACA would upend major parts of the health care system. Millions of people would lose their health care coverage, and a host of seemingly unrelated policies — including new experiments in how Medicare pays for care and an entire class of prescription drugs — would also go out the window.

How it works: A federal judge ruled in December that the ACA's individual mandate has become unconstitutional, because of the way Republicans zeroed out the penalty for being uninsured.

He said the entire ACA had to fall along with the mandate — the position the Republican attorneys general who brought this lawsuit had advocated.
At the time, the Justice Department had agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional, but said only 2 other provisions needed to go — the one requiring insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and the one prohibiting them from charging those customers a higher premium.
Now, though, the Justice Department says it agrees with the judge's entire opinion, and won't challenge any part of that ruling as the case heads through the appeals process.
What's next: The case is pending before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — the most conservative appeals court in the country. From there it would go to the Supreme Court.

Remember that Ruling in December, from a real whackadoodle judge?

Legal Commentators Nearly Pull A Muscle Condemning Judge’s Affordable Care Act Decision
How many ways can you say stupid?

It will be interesting to see if affordable healthcare becomes a central issue in the 2020 elections.


Well if it gets reported on.... did you know in the midterms, half of 2018’s Democratic campaign ads were about health care?

Putting insurance on per-existing conditions is like forcing auto insurance to cover damage on your car that was there before you bought insurance. We would be better off with medicare for all and use health insurance for extra protection, kind of like AFLAC

in·sur·ance
/inˈSHo͝orəns/
noun
noun: insurance; plural noun: insurances

1.
a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium.
"many new borrowers take out insurance against unemployment or sickness"
synonyms: assurance, indemnity, indemnification, (financial) protection, security, surety, cover
"insurance on his new car was going to cost him £750"
the business of providing insurance.
"Howard is in insurance"
money paid for insurance.
"my insurance has gone up"
money paid out as compensation under an insurance policy.
"when will I be able to collect the insurance?"
2.
a thing providing protection against a possible eventuality.

When you force insurance to pay for something that already happened, it ceases to be insurance.

[Rasulis]

Only 20,000? That's on the low end lol

That's definitely low. I saw the hospital bill breakdown when my wife had her spinal nerve operation at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis and it was over 300k. Although we only paid 3k which was our deductible.

[Edge-]

Putting insurance on per-existing conditions is like forcing auto insurance to cover damage on your car that was there before you bought insurance. We would be better off with medicare for all and use health insurance for extra protection, kind of like AFLAC

1. So...folks with pre-existing conditions should just die or go bankrupt? And should "conditions" like pregnancy, acne or other mundane "conditions" still disqualify folks as they have in the past?

2. ...Medicare is health insurance. What are you even talking about?

[Adam Jensen]

Do Republicans have any other mandate other than to destroy?

Yes.

Retain power by any means necessary

[Valeron]

Trump understands health care now

"I mean it 100 percent, I understand health care now, especially very well. A lot of people don't understand it, we are going to be, the Republicans, the party of great health care," said Mr. Trump in an Oval Office meeting with the interim first lady of Venezuela, Fabiana Rosales De Guaidó. "The Democrats have, they've let you down, they came up with Obamacare, it's terrible."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-o...ealthcare-now/

[zenkai]

1. So...folks with pre-existing conditions should just die or go bankrupt? And should "conditions" like pregnancy, acne or other mundane "conditions" still disqualify folks as they have in the past?

2. ...Medicare is health insurance. What are you even talking about?

I see you have trouble reading. I think we need medicaid for all, so no I don't think people should go bankcrupt on things that's not their fault. What I am pointing out you can't turn "insurance" into socialized medicine. Hope that clears things up for you.

Medicare is socialized medicine which is why Democrats are shouting Medicaid for all.

[Edge-]

I see you have trouble reading. I think we need medicaid for all, so no I don't think people should go bankcrupt on things that's not their fault. What I am pointing out you can't turn "insurance" into socialized medicine. Hope that clears things up for you.

I mean, considering what you posted here has little to do with the post I responded to you're damn right I'm a bit confused.

Medicare is socialized medicine which is why Democrats are shouting Medicaid for all.

No, it's not. Medicare is not a health care provider, which is what would be required for it to be socialized medicine. It's a health care payer, it handles payments and that's it. It doesn't provide doctors, it doesn't do checkups, it doesn't provide prescriptions. The only agency in the government that I can think of off the top of my head that does that is the VA.

Medicare for all is socialized health insurance, with everyone paying into the same pot and getting the same benefits.

[Rasulis]

I see you have trouble reading. I think we need medicaid for all, so no I don't think people should go bankcrupt on things that's not their fault. What I am pointing out you can't turn "insurance" into socialized medicine. Hope that clears things up for you.

Medicare is socialized medicine which is why Democrats are shouting Medicaid for all.

Medicare is not socialized medicine. We still pay premium just like any insurance. We pay $149 per month for Part A and Part B which is taken directly out of my wife's Social Security. We pay $66 per month for Sharp Medicare Platinum Advantage which covers Part C and Part D. We could go with gold which has zero premium, but for $66 per month we received dental, eye and hearing coverage also, zero copay for her medicine, and lower hospital and long-term care rate.

Low-income seniors are considered dual eligible. They are covered by both Medicare and Medicaid which are two different systems. How that work I don't know. From what I understand, this is very complicated. Because Medicaid is administered by State (with Federal funding) and Medicare is Federal. From Center of Medicare Advocacy:

Advocates report that dual eligibles are frequently charged improper cost-sharing. To the extent that providers are merely confused about their responsibilities, it will be helpful to provide them with the recent CMS guidance. To the extent they are unwilling to serve dually eligible beneficiaries if there is small or no cost-sharing payment from their state, dually eligible beneficiaries will have greater difficulty getting access to needed health care. Advocates can work with their states to increase the state’s cost-sharing payment to the full Medicare rate. Perhaps it is time for Congress to revisit the question of whether limited cost-sharing payments adversely impact beneficiaries.