If the Supreme Court Ends Obamacare, Here’s What It Would Mean

This was brought to my attention by a poster of another forum, words quoted from the article, and I'm reposting it here. with my comments

Soon, Trump administration and 18 Republican governors and attorneys general will file their opening briefs with the Supreme Court in California v. Texas—the health care repeal lawsuit

The depth of Republican hypocrisy in the SCOTUS judicial appointment fight is stunning, but this hypocrisy pales compared to the depth of their cruelty, not to mention the issue of permanently separating several thousand children from their parents for a 'crime' no worse than a class B misdemeanor.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/supreme-court-obamacare-case.html
As many as 133 million Americans — roughly half the population under the age of 65 — have pre-existing medical conditions that could disqualify them from buying a health insurance policy or cause them to pay significantly higher premiums if the health law were overturned, according to a government analysis done in 2017.
Of the 23 million people who either buy health insurance through the marketplaces set up by the law (roughly 11 million) or receive coverage through the expansion of Medicaid (12 million), about 21 million are at serious risk of becoming uninsured if Obamacare is struck down.
If the health law were struck down, more than 12 million low-income adults who have gained Medicaid coverage through the law’s expansion of the program could lose it.
The law protects many Americans from caps that insurers and employers once used to limit how much they had to pay out in coverage each year or over a lifetime. Among them are those who get coverage through an employer — more than 150 million before the pandemic caused widespread job loss — as well as roughly 15 million enrolled in Obamacare and other plans in the individual insurance market.
If the A.C.A. is struck down, Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay more for preventive care, like a wellness visit or diabetes check, which are now free. They would also have to pay more toward their prescription drugs. About five million people faced the so-called Medicare doughnut hole, or coverage gap, in 2016, which the A.C.A. sought to eliminate. If the law were overturned, that coverage gap would widen again.
The law also made other changes, like cutting the amount the federal government paid hospitals and other providers as well as private Medicare Advantage plans. Undoing the cuts could increase the program’s overall costs by hundreds of billions of dollars, according to Ms. Neuman. Premiums under the program could go up as a result.
The Urban Institute estimated that nationwide, without the A.C.A., the cost of care for people who cannot pay for it could increase as much as $50.2 billion.

 

Blah, blah, blah dems are upset because they cannot take away healthcare from the working middle class.

As far as the SCOTUS pick, when the White House and Senate majority are the same party the nomination moves forward. This is historical precedent. Get over it.

 

All the ACA did was cost shift and further erode the earning power of the working middle class. When you have two people getting the same coverage and person A pays 600/month for it because they make 60K/yr and person B pays $50/month for it because they make 25K/yr that is complete crap.

 

The inequities of the ACA can easily be fixed, but republicans do not want to do that. The bracket could easily be fixed, they do not want Obama to have a legacy. they want to take away care for millions of Americans

 

Does it prevent social liberal states like California and Washington from having a public plan under the state? I am a supporter of State insurance. I am against the fed running our Healthcare.

I am also against having to go through employers to get a plan because it eliminates consumer choice. I'd rather see a public HSA account that the employer and employees can put money in. And then you can pay for any plan you like from that account. If you want a better plan than what your employer offers, you can supplement the costs to have a better plan.

 

How does it not make sense that someone who is in poor health should pay more for insurance? They will in most cases be using the insurance more. Why not reward someone who lives a healthy life style with a lower insurance premium?

 

The fix is in repealing it and allowing people to buy healthcare across state lines. Obamacare killed competition and sent prices through the roof. You won't be "taking away" anything from anyone if the ACA is repealed you just quit illegally subsidizing their free healthcare with other people's money. If they need a plan let them go buy whatever they can afford. Thats fair.

 

A problem solved by a nationalized system which would provide better care at a lower cost.

 

Cause.... cause... because because because.... Oh wait, wrong tune. Folks can't be responsible for their own consumption, don't you know? When you use heroin day in and day out, it's up to the rest of us to pay for it. That's just the liberal way.

 

It makes perfect sense if you are inhumane.

 

No, it wouldn't. There are simply too many deadbeats in this country taking advantage to make a national system work.

 

They've been trying to push the 'across state lines' argument for years, but the problem is, each state has their own insurance laws, and insurance commissioner. Not an easy thing to do, apparently, or it seems they would have done it.

Your 'illegally subsidizing' argument is rich, considering tax payer money is used to subsidize oil companies who are cash rich, and tax money is used to subsidize all sorts of things, include churches who pay no taxes and Trump's entourage noting that he is a billionaire.. .

"Taxes" are not 'other people's money. When you pay a tax, that money is no longer yours, you surrender it and from there it becomes government property.

And, I don't know what universe you live in, but the government, long ago, has declared they have a legal and legitimate claim on a portion of your income, the very government citizens elected to office.

It is NOT yours, or other people's money.

 

That tired trope has been the right wing mantra for years, the proverbial deadbeat.

Oh, no doubt some deadbeats fall through the cracks, but most who need the ACA and medicare are low income folks, elderly and children.

But, republicans would kill health care for millions who need it on a vague notions of 'deadbeats' whom they can't name, but might be able to find one or two to 'validate' their position.

But, of course, the deadbeat corporations who willingly feed at the government trough, they don't have a problem with that.

 

You mean like type 1 diabetics or Alzheimer's patients? Should they just "healthy lifestyle" their disease away? If you mean not buying abortions or giving an alcoholic three livers, I'm with you. But we all pay in to the pool with the understanding some will need more.

 

If the Supreme Court Ends Obamacare, Here’s What It Would Mean.

Pssssst. The supreme court already had an opportunity to end obamacare and didn't do it.

 

The Trump Admin isn't party to the lawsuit...

Yes this could very well end Obamacare...if the Dems...Obama and Biden, had passed a legal law, this wouldn't be the case....but they rushed through with no compromise a law, that is potentially and more then likely illegal.

Sad...

Frankly, the Dems should want a 9th justice...if there are only 8, and a 4-4 split...which could happen with Roberts....then the lower court ruling is the law....and the lower court ruled against Obamacare. With a 5th you got a chance.

 

No. Its still my money. There were already programs for the low income, elderly and children before the ACA - tons of them. I don't want to subsidize oil companies, churches or corporations either. They can go pound sand for all I care. The government can tax me, of course. What they can't do is create a situation where I have to pay to buy a product to subsidize others who can't buy said product. That, thankfully has already been struck down, but the economic damage it has done is still being felt by everyone who pays for healthcare. Costs tripled or quadrupled for the working class. That is not in dispute.

 

They would prefer a health care program that works for all Americans not Obama care which retains all the broken parts of the old system and and breaks other things as well.

 

(sigh!) So much inanity and falsehoods, so little time and space. Is the NY Times saying that there was 133 million people that could not get insurance because of pre-existing conditions prior to ACA? That is beyond idiotic.. The 21 million that the NY Times says will be uninsured if ACA is repealed is more than the initial estimate that was used in support of ACA, and back then it was estimated by reliable sources (which you can keep your doctor, you can keep your insurance, and you will save $2000 Obama was not) that there was 4 to 6 million uninsured who also wanted but couldn't afford insurance. Most of the stated 15-20 million who were not insured did not want insurance. ACA did remove the caps but at a cost of deductibles going from less than $1000 to over $10,000, and that on top of much higher premiums. The case with Medicare is grossly overstated and misrepresented, but the most blatant ploy comes from the fact that ACA has very little to do with Medicare. (BTW a patient can get one wellness check. Medicare has a ton of lower paid for items and a ton of unavailable -- rationed -- treatments.) ACA did greatly decrease Medicare Advantage support until someone told Obama that had to be told in writing to every Medicare Advantage participant one month before the 2012 election, so Obama quickly rewrote the law by executive order to keep Medicare Advantage as is and illegally stole (per an Inspector General) money from a HHS research fund to cover it. On and on ad nauseum.

 

The Republican healthcare program is simply this.

Cant afford it? you get none.

Your going to die without it? Too bad.


Thats the republican health care plan.

 

In a nutshell: less people insured but at a much larger cost.

 

This 'consumer choice' argument is so bullshit.

When I signed up the ACA, there were over a dozen HMOs partnering with the plans. Each HMO had 50 or more doctors and clinics to choose from.

There are several levels. the Bronze, The Silver, The gold, etc. The bronze was the cheapest, but there is where the deductibles were sky high

All this criticism of the ACA had to do with the high deductibles. This argument totally ignored the silver plans, which cost modestly more, but deductibles were reasonable.

For example, I saw a bronze plan where the monthly premium was like, $50, but the deductibles were $2k - -$3k etc.

So, I looked at the silver plans, so I signed up with Healthnet under a silver plan, premiums were $132 per month, and deductible was $500 and doctor visits had $10 copays. Entirely affordable. so all this talk of high deductibles ignores the silver plans. Now, in smaller states, the exchanges do not have as many HMOs. so their degree of 'robust' won't be as good as say, a big state such as California. This could be fixed by getting 3 or more states to group as one, but Republicans do not want Obama to have a legacy, and do not want to fix Obamacare. That way, whatever is wrong with the ACA, they can call it a 'disaster' not mentioning that fact that whatever problems it has, it is they who are fomenting the problem.

I might be incorrect on some details, but this is my understanding of it.

The ACA a structured that citizens go through their state exchange, which is an ACA backed exchanged, but created by the particular states for the particular needs of that states citizens.
Those that opt in (medicaid expansion, etc ) have state exchanges, and residents of that state go through the state exchanges. Those states that opt out of medicaid expansion and the ACA, residents of those states have to go through the federal exchange, but those citizens of those states will not be able to take advantage of the medicaid expansion. This means that some 10 - 15 million people who could have gotten care will not get it because their state's governor is some right winger that doesn't want his or her citizens to have care, totally oblivious to the fact that the federal government is sponsoring the greater portion of it, and they are turning down a freebie from the federal government, and denying their own citizens from getting health care.

this happened to a friend of mine who lives in Texas. She was self - employed, didn't earn enough to just buy insurance, she was 60 years old, not old enough for medicare, but she made slightly more than the federal ACA exchange would allow, and since Texas opted out of the ACA, if they had opted in, should would have qualified under the medicaid expansion, but since they opted out, she can't get it, and note that she has multiple sclerosis, so she is screwed. until she is old enough to qualify for medicare.

Those citizens who have medicare via the expansion would lose their health care if ACA is repealed, and those who just have straight ACA coordinated health care, be it Healthnet, Blue Cross, Cigna, whatever, will lose their health care until they are old enough for medicare. .

Some 130 million Americans can be denied care because of preexisting conditions, and that is likely given that corporations will experience higher per member costs due to the loss of subsidies

Repeal of the ACA will result in health care premiums skyrocketing for those who health care was not obtained via the ACA, and those whose health care was the direct result of ACA will lose their subsidies and their costs will go up.

I'm on medicare, and my $132 premium will greatly increase. I'm on meds and the pills cost $24 each, and I need one per day.

Repeal of the ACA, since I'm on social security, retired, and have only a modest part time job, will be devastating on my life, because if I can't afford my meds, I will suffer greatly and not be able to work without my meds ( I have chronic pain which the meds alleviate ).

So all you who oppose the ACA and support the repeal, The depth of your cruelty knows no bounds. And, of course, you don't give a damn about the plight of 130 million Americans who have preexisting conditions.

What conservatives are confused about is this idea of 'state run' or government run'.

My clinic, my doctor, is a private clinic, he is self employed. All the ACA does is subsidize my premiums, and it also requires my insurer to cover me though I have a preexisting condition.

The basic idea of UHC if every one contributes to a common fund, the cost to society overall will be cheaper for each citizen. UHC is the only way to get health care to everyone. Without it, private care because to expensive for more than half of America. I cannot fathom any logic that says UHC is a bad idea. All of the conservative arguments break down under scrutiny, when the facts are taken into account, and the only arguments against it are based on myths.

Without the ACA, I will lose my 'medicaid advantage' plan, which is a private insurer, and have to resign up with straight medicare. I don't know if that will be better or worse. I will find out, though I think it will be worse because of the meds I take, they don't allow 30 pills, medicare only allows 9. Medicare, SSI, etc, do not allow members to get 30 sumatriptan pills, since it is for migraines and it is assumed no one has chronic migraines. I know this because my brother is disabled and is on SSI and that is all he can get, but they give him narcotics. Well, I do not have migraines, I have cluster headaches, and it is chronic, and sumatriptan does work well for this, the pain does not go away. My only hope is to take one sumatriptan pill each day, this relieves the pain. Without this drug I cannot function, I am bed ridden and the pain is unbearable. Sumatriptan is not an analgesic or a narcotic, it doesn't get rid of pain like a pain killer does, it cures the source of the pain ( I don't know how it works ) and it last 22 hours and does not build up, does not get one high, and is not addictive. It's really a miracle drug. If they kill the ACA, I will have to resign up under Medicare, but medicare only allows 9 pills per month. THat would force me to go to mexico to purchase them because they are affordable down there ( fortunately, I live in San Diego not far from the border ). There might be a problem getting into mexico now with the pandemic, I don't know if I can get into mexico now. But, it will be a big hassle if I can. Killing the ACA has far reaching implications for millions of people. Without care, many people will die. It will turn my life upside down.

But republicans do not give a damn. And, whatever their arguments against the ACA are, can be fixed, but repubs don't want Obama to have a legacy. They do not have a replacement bill. They have ****.

Republicans and conservatives and libertarians do not give a damn.

 

And that is of course bs. But what ever garbage you have to tell yourself to continue to vote for the increasing fascist left.

 

That's not BS, that was the status quo before the ACA.

How quickly we forget.

and FYI, it is a historical fact that FASCISM is largely associated with the extreme right.

Democrats want more democracy, IT IS REPUBLICANS WHO WANT MORE FASCISM by less democracy, they don't want people to vote

The support Trump who is guilty of the following fascistic elements

1. Voter suppression
2. Militarization of police
3. Incendiary speeches by the president fanning flames/ inciting violence,
4 Calling the free press 'the enemy of the people
5. Gaslighting, accusing opponent of the very things Trump is guilty of ( like you are doing )
6. Nepotism
7 Corruption
8 Cozying up to dictators who are our enemies
9 Dereliction of duty to protect Americans from the pandemic, which, in turn is tanking the economy and accelerating massive loss of life.
10. Propping up the stock market with taxpayer funds to the tune of trillions, which is failing, evaporating tax payer dollars which could be used to help the unemployed
11 Gutting the state department
12 Poisoning the CDC with political operatives who forward Trump's anti-science agenda
13 Undermining the HHS with political operatives who forward Trump's antisocial anti-health agenda
14 Undermining the EPA with political operatives who foward Trump's anti science agenda
15 Appointing industry lobbyists in major cabinet posts ( related to, 13, 14, )
16 Epic hypocrisy

Trump is guilty of all of the above ( and I can back up each and every one ) and Trump's believers have been mesmerized by a master manipulator who has
filled the minds of simpleton supporters with thought - terminating clichés, slogans, etc.

You've been duped, conned, fooled, and you don't even know it, you've been 'trumped'.

Trump is destroying America

And your head is in the sand, and you don't give a damn.

 

What scares me is that you actually appear to believe that bilge. None of those things in your list are particular to fascism. Trump is trying to save this country from the increasingly fascist left. That you don't or won't recognize the growing fascism on your side of the aisle is just sad.