How's that Obamacare Repeal Working Out For You?

[SuburbanFarmer]

It's weird how the conservatives are protecting Obamacare when, ten years ago, they said they were totally opposed to it. It's almost like conservatism is just liberalism delayed.

I dont get this, does no one know that for intents and purposes Obamacare has been gutted? Without the financial penalty of the individual mandate it's dead.

I for one am quite happy about the tax penalty going away. But one does worry for those poor, starving hospitals.

[clubgop]

It's weird how the conservatives are protecting Obamacare when, ten years ago, they said they were totally opposed to it. It's almost like conservatism is just liberalism delayed.

I dont get this, does no one know that for intents and purposes Obamacare has been gutted? Without the financial penalty of the individual mandate it's dead.

I for one am quite happy about the tax penalty going away. But one does worry for those poor, starving hospitals.

What? What does the penalty have to do with hospitals? Insurance, no insurance, you are paying them one or another.

[Fife]

It was an interesting Monday, eh?

Justice Department sides with court ruling Obamacare invalid

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday announced that it is siding with a district court ruling that found the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

The move is an escalation of the Trump administration's legal battle against the health care law.

The DOJ previously argued in court that the law's pre-existing condition protections should be struck down. Now, the administration argues the entire law should be invalidated.

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor ruled in December that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of law is therefore invalid.

The DOJ said Monday that it agrees the decision should stand as the case works its way through the appeals process in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

[Ph64]

It was an interesting Monday, eh?

Justice Department sides with court ruling Obamacare invalid

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday announced that it is siding with a district court ruling that found the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

The move is an escalation of the Trump administration's legal battle against the health care law.

The DOJ previously argued in court that the law's pre-existing condition protections should be struck down. Now, the administration argues the entire law should be invalidated.

U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor ruled in December that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of law is therefore invalid.

The DOJ said Monday that it agrees the decision should stand as the case works its way through the appeals process in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Always been an interesting one. I for one disagree with forcing anyone to buy something... But we do it for auto liability insurance (no fault).

On the other hand, when it comes to pre-existing conditions... I suppose you call it discrimination against sick people not to offer them insurance? That being said, I thoroughly disagree that pre-existing conditions people can't be charged more than a perfectly healthy person - there's more risk, and risk should cost more. Even in finance it's a given that risky bonds have higher rates. And of course then you could argue you if you can't force insurance to cover anyone who wants it, you can't force the baker to bake a cake...

Maybe I'd agree to bake that cake, for $5million? After all, if I'm risking my immortal soul according to my (protected) religious belief there should be a cost for that risk.

The fine to me though was ridiculous - it I don't have insurance you fine me, but for my money I still don't have insurance... I'm just paying more in for all the people paying nothing to get medicaid, which I'm already paying for in my normal taxes - why should I pay more for them and yet still receive nothing for the *extra* I'm forced to pay on top of already supporting it? And here's the thing - take no-fault car insurance, its illegal to drive without it - technically you're unregistered even without it, it you're pulled over you could be arrested, jailed, have to go to court, etc. If they want to do the same for health insurance then why didn't they make it a crime like with auto insurance? (My guess is they figured it'd get challenged in court).

All just seems twisted and poorly thought out to me.

[The Conservative]

So then have the ACA for those with medically diagnosed pre-existing conditions.

Not mental issues such as transgender BS.

[Speaker to Animals]

The pre-existing condition problem represents the argument against for-profit health insurance.

[Fife]

The pre-existing condition problem represents the argument against for-profit health insurance.

Before I get you all riled up, can you tell me what the "pre-existing condition problem" is, in your view? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.

[The Conservative]

The pre-existing condition problem represents the argument against for-profit health insurance.

Before I get you all riled up, can you tell me what the "pre-existing condition problem" is, in your view? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.

I had epilepsy over it 20 years ago, I was born with it. Because of that, even though I have not had a seizure for almost as long, 20 years, I by medical standards have a pre-existing condition. This means that even though I have showed no symptoms or anything else I pay more for my health insurance, or would under the pre-existing clause.

And if I can’t afford it, I don’t get health insurance.

[Speaker to Animals]

The pre-existing condition problem represents the argument against for-profit health insurance.

Before I get you all riled up, can you tell me what the "pre-existing condition problem" is, in your view? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.

I think you do know what I mean by that.

If sick people cannot gain access to health care, then health care can no longer fulfill it's primary purpose.

[Fife]

The pre-existing condition problem represents the argument against for-profit health insurance.

Before I get you all riled up, can you tell me what the "pre-existing condition problem" is, in your view? I'm not sure I know what you mean by that.

I think you do know what I mean by that.

If sick people cannot gain access to health care, then health care can no longer fulfill it's primary purpose.

I wasn't trying to be cute or funny. Skip it.