Forum Thread

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 26 1 2 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the Obamacare subsidies throughout the entire country. Two conservatives (Kennedy and Roberts) joined with the courts four liberals to uphold the subsidies throughout the country.

    While many people haven't been paying attention to this case, it had the potential to blow up the entire health care law if it had gone the other way. Now it can be said, without any doubt, that Obamacare is here to stay. That's good news for the millions of citizens who now have health insurance who were staring down at the possibility of having it snatched away from them.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Great news, but really not unexpected. This should have been a no brainer for all the justices. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas don't deserve to be on the bench, but hey they are there compliments of our political divisiveness. It's too bad that the ruling will not affect the uninsured in those red states that have been denied the benefits of ACA Medicaid expansion.

    Huffington Post: Supreme Court Rejects Obamacare Lawsuit, Preserving Insurance For Millions

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Great news, but really not unexpected. This should have been a no brainer for all the justices. Alito, Scalia, and Thomas don't deserve to be on the bench, but hey they are there compliments of our political divisiveness.

    I agree. Those are the types of judges we get when a Republican is in the White House. That's why I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, even if it's Hillary, because I honestly can't imagine the type of justice a Republican President would nominate.

    Schmidt Wrote: It's too bad that the ruling will not affect the uninsured in those red states that have been denied the benefits of ACA Medicaid expansion.

    It's so depressing that so many Republican states are fine with watching their own citizens go bankrupt and without healthcare out of pure spite. Instead of working to make sure the most vulnerable of their residents get healthcare they tell them to suck it up and fend for themselves. How sad.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    In listening to the Republican response to this ruling, it looks like they will now go all out to repeal the Affordable Care Act using the reconciliation process as part of the budget bill (no filibuster allowed). Essentially that will force President Obama to veto the bill. Republicans have backed themselves in a corner. The Clown Car will likewise to support the repeal to satisfy their base of ignorant fools.

  • Republican
    Tennessee
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    In listening to the Republican response to this ruling, it looks like they will now go all out to repeal the Affordable Care Act using the reconciliation process as part of the budget bill (no filibuster allowed). Essentially that will force President Obama to veto the bill. Republicans have backed themselves in a corner. The Clown Car will likewise to support the repeal to satisfy their base of ignorant fools.

    So, what is wrong with budget reconciliation? That is how the Democrats passed it, because they didn't have enough votes to pass it.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    In listening to the Republican response to this ruling, it looks like they will now go all out to repeal the Affordable Care Act using the reconciliation process as part of the budget bill (no filibuster allowed). Essentially that will force President Obama to veto the bill. Republicans have backed themselves in a corner. The Clown Car will likewise to support the repeal to satisfy their base of ignorant fools.

    Reconciliation will be a lot harder than Republicans are claiming though. They will have to come up with hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for it because reconciliation can only be done if the Senate Parliamentarian concludes that it will be financially neutral or decrease the budget deficit.

    That means that they will have to make dramatic cuts to other programs, which will be extremely difficult. There are more than a few blue state Republicans who will think twice before voting to slash the budgets of other programs in order to come up with the hundreds of billions they will need.

    And even if they can come up with 51 votes, Republicans will have to go on the record by voting to slash hundreds of billions of dollars from popular programs only to have the President veto whatever they pass anyway. That's a 30 second attack ad handed to Democrats on a silver platter.

  • Center Left
    Independent
    Central, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I admit that I was very concerned to see what would be decided. I am quite pleased that it was handled as it was.
  • Republican
    Tennessee
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Higher premiums for all, with higer deductibles. And for those of us with "Cadillac" insurance packages negotiated by our unions, the loss of our "Cadillac" insurance, because it is unaffordable after the new taxes kick in. wreg.com/2015/06/10/experts-say-memphis...

    It would have been cheaper to just insure the uninsured than to subject those of us who were happy with our insurance to this continuing nightmare.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    A nightmare is not having insurance and being diagnosed with cancer, having a preexisting condition and being denied insurance, or having your insurance cut off because you reached your "lifetime limit." Having to pay a few extra bucks a month is not a nightmare for the vast majority of people who have health insurance for the first time in their lives and can get sick without having to go bankrupt and lose their homes to pay for it.

    Tens of millions of people call this law a lifesaver. A lifesaver that saved them from financial ruin and prevented them from being discriminated against because they had depression, cancer, diabetes, or any other preexisting condition. A lifesaver that said insurers can no longer discriminate against women and charge them more than they do men. And a lifesaver that finally gave people who have never had health insurance before some peace of mind.

    If anyone should be against this law it should be me. I pay for my own health insurance and went from paying $50/month for a bare bones plan to paying $215/month for a bronze plan. That easily could have made me upset, but you know what? I gladly pay it because I want my fellow citizens to have access to healthcare and because I can afford it. If I couldn't afford it then I would have received a subsidy to help me pay for it. Paying 320% more per month than I was used to has not effected me in the least and knowing that my increase has helped provide long sought after health care to the less fortunate is a-ok with me.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Here's President Obama's statement after the ruling. I love his final two lines: "So this was a good day for America. Let's get back to work."

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Here's another article of interest from the Washington Post.

    Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling benefits way more people in red counties than blue

    ""About 1.8 million people in federal exchanges live in counties that voted for Obama. About 4.5 million live in counties that voted for Mitt Romney.

    "Whether or not Republican politicians consider Thursday's Supreme Court ruling a negative for them is open to interpretation. The 2016 candidates have railed against it in press releases, but deep down inside, it's hard to believe that they wanted to deal with the fallout of the nuclear detonation that a ruling against Obamacare would have been. They still have their political cudgel, and they don't have to clean up a mess. Win-win."

    The political rhetoric by Republican candidates is indeed highly critical and caustic. But I believe that they are happy that the Supreme Court ruled as they did. Otherwise, they would have been put into a difficult position of having to come up with some kind of plan to fix it. And that would have been too heavy of a burden for them to bear.

  • Independent
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Tennessee_Treader Wrote:

    Higher premiums for all, with higer deductibles. And for those of us with "Cadillac" insurance packages negotiated by our unions, the loss of our "Cadillac" insurance, because it is unaffordable after the new taxes kick in. wreg.com/2015/06/10/experts-say-memphis...

    It would have been cheaper to just insure the uninsured than to subject those of us who were happy with our insurance to this continuing nightmare.

    Of course insurance companies prior to the advent of the aca weren't raising premiums nor playing the role of palin's death panels, were they?
  • Republican
    Tennessee
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote:
    Tennessee_Treader Wrote:

    Higher premiums for all, with higer deductibles. And for those of us with "Cadillac" insurance packages negotiated by our unions, the loss of our "Cadillac" insurance, because it is unaffordable after the new taxes kick in. wreg.com/2015/06/10/experts-say-memphis...

    It would have been cheaper to just insure the uninsured than to subject those of us who were happy with our insurance to this continuing nightmare.

    Of course insurance companies prior to the advent of the aca weren't raising premiums nor playing the role of palin's death panels, were they?

    There are problems with ACA. People can afford the insurance. Many cannot afford the actual medical care, because now they are paying for insurance and medical care out-of-pocket because of the high deductibles. Hospitals and doctors here in Memphis are having to gather together in huge groups in order to survive economically...huge monopolies. Some doctors are pulling out of the system altogether and serving a limited number of patients who want to pay an annual fee for basic health care. Union members are looking at losing very good insurance in exchange for something less at the same cost. Not to mention the significant premium increases that are coming next year. All of this to help ~10 million people? Sounds like a bad business alternative to me. Enjoy the premium increases next year:

    kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/analy...

  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Most everyone on here knows my stance on this Act,it's horrible, my Medicare covers 80% and then my supplemental Ins which I pay a premium for, kicks in for the other 20%, my savings and pension plus Soc. Sec. determines my premium bracket, which carries certain deductibles and out of pocket expenses, the broker I become ,due to medical expense's, the less I pay, now my meds have gone up in price but my deductible levels remain the same which insures my going over my limit ,which will then cause me to pay 100% for my meds until I hit another certain plateau, then the Ins. covers 100%. what the hell is so affordable about that.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It's sad how certain people who receive government funded healthcare have no problem saying they don't want other people to have healthcare...