Medicare For All opponents just had a Come-To-Jesus moment

For the predators in Big Pharma and Big Insurance, it just got real. That singular moment in Bernie's Town Hall on Fox, where Bret Baier asked the audience about Medicare For All was the bloodsuckers' 9/11.
The markets are already starting to price in MFA.

insurance.png

Health-care companies that get mixed up in politics? That was $28 billion worth of ugly on Tuesday, and the stock market damage continued on Wednesday.

“Presidential primary politics,” said Evercore ISI analyst Michael Newshel, are “more in focus than fundamentals.”

The slide began in earnest on Tuesday when UnitedHealth Group Inc. -- treated by investors as a bellwether for the insurance sector -- waded into the debate over “Medicare for All,” which would expand government-administered coverage to most of the population and rewrite the businesses of U.S. health insurers, hospitals and doctors.

While it’s a longshot to become law despite the backing of some contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, the proposal has the power to upend company stock prices. Together, the shares of hospitals and insurers lost $28 billion in market value on Tuesday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The Tuesday losses capped the worst five-day stretch since 2011 for health insurers, despite UnitedHealth reporting earnings that beat analysts’ estimates and raising its 2019 forecast.

The S&P 500 Managed Health Care Index fell 5.5% on Wednesday, and is now down 13 percent for the year.
In response, the Trump Administration sent out Seema Verma.

The nation’s top Medicare official said on ‘Fox & Friends’ Wednesday that Democrats' “Medicare-for-all” proposal amounts to “the biggest threat to the American health care system,” claiming the policy would lead to worse care and longer wait times.

“I’ve been saying that Medicare-for-all is the biggest threat to the American health care system,” Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Seema Verma said. “What we’re talking about is stripping people of their private health insurance, forcing them into a government-run program.”

That might sound convincing, if not for the fact that Verma's background is as a CEO of a Health insurance group who's specialty was helping states to avoid the Medicaid expansion of Obamacare.

Meanwhile, both the "liberal" NY Times and WashPost published concern trolls about the cost of MFA.

The success of Bernie's Town Hall on Fox has caused the hilarious situation of Trump attacking his favorite network over and over again.

No matter how you slice it, health care will be a much bigger issue in 2020 than in 2018 for multiple reasons. All but one of those reasons was caused/created by the GOP.
The Trump Administration and the rest of the Republican Party can't kick poor people off of public health insurance fast enough, while they are also winning the battle against Obamacare. That leaves only Bernie's MFA or...

Share
up
40 users have voted.

Comments

Lookout's picture

that republican insurance scam, might usher in M4A is pretty amusing...even if it is a dream.

So funny too because it is such a no brainer - spend less and get better service. The nature of single payer would be to increase the efficiency and take out insurance profiteering and denials. Even FAUX news fans understand.

And that has them scared.

up
35 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Big Al's picture

@Lookout it was proposed by Obama and passed by the democrats? I know the basis of the plan came from a right wing Heritage foundation plan, but politically, the democrats and Obama own it.
Which gives me no faith that the democratic party can or will do anything other than compromise away any chance at a truly nationalized health care system for decades to come.

up
13 users have voted.

@Big Al duh! Thats why they fight the left and would rather lose to Trump than lose to Bernie or Tulsi.

up
8 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

@Big Al

was my point...here are the rethuglicans shutting down their own stink tank/ Romney care plan that dims renamed the ACA (ie Obummer care). Even though they got the profiteering system they wanted they are going to kill it because the dims own it.

As a result we might get a (watered down?) M4A plan. Seems ironic to me anyway.

up
8 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

@Lookout @Lookout
That way, California, Illinois, and New York can't regulate insurance. Some state like Wyoming will win the race to the bottom, giving a blank check in exchange for licensing fees. Just consider, "How did South Dakota become the credit card capital instead of New York?"

EDIT: spelling in title

up
5 users have voted.

If the ACA has taught us anything, it is never to underestimate the Republicans' tenacity to destroy a government program. I don't know that M4A would fare any better. They would relish putting it in the bathtub on day 1 to give it a proper Republican (how long can you hold your breath?) baptism.

up
5 users have voted.
Lookout's picture

@davidgmillsatty

...is not likely to serve the people, but the profiteers. Same as always ain't it?

up
3 users have voted.

“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

Cassiodorus's picture

Now, being a nonbeliever myself, I tend to regard Jesus as dwelling in the Land of Fantasy, which is as real as anything else in people's heads. At any rate, my guess is that Jesus up there in Heaven texted his friend Satan and told him "hey I think you've got a new customer -- you might want to check your emails."

Here's the critical question: who gets the Easter Bunny's money under the pillow next year?

up
12 users have voted.

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

@Cassiodorus @Cassiodorus
At least that is how I understand the term.

As for the opposite of truth, Markos has decided to double-down on wrong and stupid.
Note: Markos gets called "breathtakingly stupid" on-air MSNBC in this video:

up
24 users have voted.

@gjohnsit Never doubted at an intellectual level, but this was a visceral reminder.

up
10 users have voted.

@Cassiodorus
finally accepts that he's been wrong all along -- you know, the scales fall from his eyes, and so on.

Its usage in the south generally implies a certain level of coercion is involved. In the political realm, the implication is that someone has been dragged into a back room somewhere and had certain realities explained to them, with the result that they will leave off resisting the powers that be and get with the program.

up
7 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

Alligator Ed's picture

You know, the ones we pay for and still can't afford to get sick. The pseudo-argument that private insurance is better than public health care is ridiculous--no matter how many trillions of increased debt M4A is claimed to cost. A simple example: give drivers a choice of two roads, one in which they pay a toll at one end, then nothing else, versus random roadblocks erected by insurance flacks which appear any time your health takes a turn.

How people fall for such balderdash always reinforces the doctrine "Never underestimate human stupidity".

up
23 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

It's not human stupidity that causes these problems. It's the acceptance of decades of binary choice that is the problem. We've been "taught" to be this "stupid".

"You can get a shock or eat some food. Your choice. I'll Wait."

We are a brutalized and captive people. Terrified to make a move as that move will result in loss of livelihood, food, money, home, acceptance with peers - and all of our choices are deliberately pitched and pushed in binary: We can do this or do nothing. A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Obamacare or kill 40 million people. Be part of the problem or part of the solution.

This is the "reality" of our political and social system. Stepping outside the binary is scary and seems dangerous, until you do it. If you do it REALLY well and some people start to follow your lead it gets dangerous.

So, I don't think it's that we're stupid, necessarily, or that the stupidity of human beings is at fault. This is a learned behavior that holds evolutionary fitness. We're being evolved into this. I look to the environment every bit as much as the individual. This is systemic, which is why it makes zero sense when looking at the individual.

@Alligator Ed

up
26 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Eagles92's picture

@k9disc Great comment.

up
12 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

@Eagles92

up
8 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@Alligator Ed

Private health care versus government-provided health care is apples to apples.
So is private health insurance versus government health insurance.

Comparing private health insurance with public health care is apples and oranges.

up
8 users have voted.
The Liberal Moonbat's picture

I want to see WAY MORE of him!

Look at him swinging for the fences there on behalf of Blue Team - makes me all the more furious at Reid and Pelosi....

up
12 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is declared insane when he speaks of colors.

Well, it already has been, by a lower federal court. https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18065838/obamacare-unconstitutional-texas...

However, the SCOTUS may speak on it.

up
6 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

@HenryAWallace It's mandated participation in a private market for the good of the country. It's, by definition, some kind of fascism, IMO.

Do it with any other "product" - "...as a result of living and breathing you must purchase this product from a private source." I don't think it has any modern analogue. I think you got to go back to Mercantilism and the Dutch East India Company to get something like this out of Western legal code.

It gets much worse when there is no contractual obligation to provide actual CARE.

@HenryAWallace

up
16 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@k9disc It is not mandated. And if it was, so what? Governments mandate. George Washington famously quipped that "government is force." If a government can't force you to do something what kind of government is that? Somehow mandating you to buy a product is way worse than mandating you to be in the military????

up
1 user has voted.
k9disc's picture

The individual mandate was the point of the ACA. It was mandated participation in a private market.

I seemed to have not gotten the fine this year, which I thought was a possibility with Drumpf in the China Shoppe, and the individual mandate to purchase a product from a private entity that earns money by denying care is a piece of china that needed breaking. I'm happy about that. I hope it stays broken.

Your military analogy does not hold water. It would be more apt if the population were forced to join Blackwater or Xe, or some other merc outfit. But to say military service as a responsibility for citizenship is akin to mandated participation in a fraudulent private market for the good of the country is a not a solid analogue.

The crown forced Americans to buy from the Dutch East India Company. It's a major cause of the Revolutionary War. I really don't think there is any precedent in the American legal code for it, and your military analogy is not it.

@davidgmillsatty

up
14 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

The mandate argument is constitutional bullshit. The government can mandate you do certain things that require you to buy a product that the government does not make.

The most obvious is clothing. Nobody gets to walk around naked.

The second most obvious is vaccinations.

In early USA, men were required by statute to own guns when the USA did not yet have a standing army.

I realize that the mandate was what caused the ACA to pass. But a mandate to buy a product was perfectly constitutional.

Now that a mandate doesn't exist anymore, the question arises as to whether the ACA is constitutional without one.

The real issue is interstate commerce. In the first ACA case Roberts wrote an opinion that the ACA did not come under the interstate commerce clause. That too was a bullshit argument. Virtually nothing we do is not interstate commerce today. That is a fact that the founders probably never considered being a reality much less a commonality. Just the fact that the health care field requires computer technology and the internet makes the field interstate commerce. Think of where all the parts of a computer are made. The same can be said for MRI's and most other heath care equipment. Think of what the health care field's use of the internet does as it pertains to interstate commerce. The field is not just interstate; it is global as are most parts of the economy.

The ACA required all kinds of computer based technology, especially with respect to patient records. Think of the ACA Marketplace. Pretty difficult to argue that it does not involve interstate commerece. So the interstate commerce clause is very relevant to the ACA. It could be raised again by those opposing its unconstitutionality.

Turn the case into a medical informatics / interstate commerce case. That field of medical informatics has mushroomed in large part due to ACA requirments. Roberts would choke having to answer that question, as would all justices.

But once the Supreme Court acknowledges that we live in an age of vast interstate commerce, then Congress now has the ability to regulate the entire economy. That is the problem in a nutshell.

Intrastate commerce is a legal fiction. Interstate commerce is the reality of today's world. Somebody will raise that argument this time around and the ACA will be upheld again. (My predictions were right on both ACA challenges).

up
2 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

@davidgmillsatty requiring you to purchase a private product or service as a result of breathing?

I'll wait. Not happening.

SCOTUS is already on record as saying the mandate was constitutional, which I disagree with, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them strike it down because the mandate is not in there. I'm sure there is a convoluted "strict constructionist" reason for that.

I do appreciate the other Constitutional issues, but I could see all kinds of precedent Constitutional and Un-Constitutional from history, can't pull them off the top of my head right now, but I'm sure with some thought I could find some commerce clause precedent and related legal code.

I don't really have an opinion on the other issues, a bit outside my breadth of knowledge, I think. You could be right on that. Citing Roberts as a Constitutional authority does strike me as a bit rich.

Do you think outlawed abortion would be Constitutional if SCOTUS says so? How about freedom to pollute? Do you think FOX News has the right to lie under the 1st Amendment? All rhetorical, no need to answer...

We've got all kinds of blatantly unconstitutional shit going down right now if we had anything but a shit ton of corporate cons and centrists on the court. But we don't. We got justices who serve corporate and the State.

To close on this, I have zero faith in the courts. I have zero faith in the congress, and I have zero faith in the executive. Don't even really know why I'm talking to you about this because I think the Constitution has been a manipulative piece of paper for at least 150 years. Makes me feel like an idiot for believing in the myth of the American Citizen.

Saddens me to say that, but I think the Constitution has been used as a tool to keep us toeing the line of the State rather than protecting our rights and securing us against tyrannical government for most of our existence as a country.

Peace~
@davidgmillsatty

up
6 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@k9disc

Of course there is precedent. You don't get to walk around naked claiming the government doesn't have the right to make you buy clothes from a clothing manufacturer. Cases of indecency are upheld all the time. Same goes for vaccinations. Vaccinations have been held to be constitutional over and over. And I even pointed out the early statute requiring men to have guns before the US decided that not having a standing army was a mistake (the war of 1812 made Madison change his mind when he couldn't get any of the militias to defend the country). These are well known examples and this argument about the government should not be able to require you to buy a product is Federalist and globalist bullshit. And it needs to be called out.

I mentioned Roberts because he is well known for his dicta in the first ACA case holding that a certain part of the ACA did not bring it under the purview of the commerce clause. But there are a whole host of other provisions that might, that were not raised as coming under that purview of the commerce clause. And I think the record keeping requirements and the usage of the internet for obtaining insurance are interstate commerce. Same goes for all of the medical technology that is required for modern medicine and healthcare.

As for the other issues, they will have to wait for another day.

I certainly think that a woman's right to abortion is a constitutional issue and the constitution protects that right. One argument that has never been made is that it is slavery to have to work for another without consent. If a fetus is a "person," then requiring a woman to carry it to term is slavery, in my opinion. But I also think Roe v. Wade was also decided correctly on privacy grounds. People have a clear right to privacy under the constitution. The best example of that, (which was not mentioned in Roe v. Wade) is the prohibition against quartering soldiers under the third amendment.

But I have no crystal ball about what would happen in the event there is an attempt to overturn Roe. Make the arguments I just made and maybe even this present court would overturn it.

up
1 user has voted.
k9disc's picture

Guns can be handed down, procured by barter, and manufactured.

Clothes can be handed down, picked up in dumpsters, animal hides, and could be foliage from a plant.

I know it sounds silly, but no more silly than pretending that having to purchase clothes to escape indecency laws. The gun thing is closer, but again, it can be handed down and bartered for.

Can't do that with health insurance. No barter, no hand me downs, no "I already got one". As a citizen, under the ACA mandate you must enter into a long term, contractual relationship with one of a select few private companies in your area to the tune of a significant percentage of most all American's net wealth. And you still go bankrupt if you get sick.

That's not buying a gun. That's not buying clothes. It's a mandated contractual obligation with a private company.

Could we do the same with banking? You must bank here? You must have, and maintain an account and a contractual obligation with that financial institution or one of a few government approved institutions? I think the Constitutionality on that would be clearly in doubt, and wouldn't be approved by ANY SCOTUS.

We should probably just cut this now, I don't think it's possible to get me to change my mind that mandated contracting with a private entity for the good of the entire country is unconstitutional. And you seem to agree with the majority SCOTUS opinion from 2011-2012.

Best of luck to you. I hope we can see eye to eye on some other issues.

@davidgmillsatty

up
7 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@k9disc

up
3 users have voted.

I guarantee you it is no defense to an indecency charge to claim you could not get any hand me down clothing or you could not make your own.

There is no such thing as a hand me down vaccine. It has long been held that the government has the right to regulate the public health. They can mandate you get your health issue taken care of or the government has the right to quarantine you.

The position you espouse is very libertarian. "I want my liberty at the expense of every one else."

up
0 users have voted.

@davidgmillsatty The important point I wish to make here is that we need to keep proving that Congressional action regarding health care is constitutional. Because, if we ever get M4A, it will likely face numerous constitutional challenges as well by Republicans.

They are now on their third try with the ACA. Expect the same for the M4A.

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

My opinion is not statist, which doesn't mean it's libertarian.

I think the rights of the State are subservient to the rights of the People, I think the Constitution agrees with me. It seems rather clear that you, and the political Establishment see it the other way. No thank you.

I actually find this angle to be quite scary, and freely admit that I'm struggling with the Left/Right paradigm at this time. Your statist line scares the shit out of me, and it's the defacto Democratic line.

The BIG vs little paradigm is much more clear to me, and Democrats side with the BIGs at the expense of the littles because it serves the State.

And to make matters worse, Republicans completely agree. The rights of the people are subservient to the rights of the State. There is no representation in America for people who believe that the State is here to serve the people.

Kennedy's quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you..." always irked me.

@davidgmillsatty

up
2 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@k9disc I am no statist. Trust me. But I draw the line when your liberty steps on my toes. It is always a balancing test. We have a huge country with many divergent interests. My personal belief is the the government has the right, possibly the duty, to give us all adequate health care. Moreover, I don't think you have the right to get sick at my expense. I think the government has a right to step in and stop you if that is what you are doing.

up
0 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

We have never had purely mandatory vaccinations. Vaccinations have been required to gain access to the support of the State.

Citizens have been free to not vaccinate, but if you choose not to, then you may not take advantage of public education and other public goods. Seems to me a different situation.

Another different situation, a new one, is to quarantine people who choose not to vaccinate. I don't think it's been on the table before. It is now.

@davidgmillsatty

up
0 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@k9disc Quarantines have been around for a long time with respect to vaccines. Especially when the virus is extremely harmful.

up
1 user has voted.
k9disc's picture

from quarantining for non-acceptance of a prophylactic vaccination.

Nobody has had to personally contract with the private vaccine company and pay a subscription for recurrent vaccinations during an epidemic in order to escape quarantine. At least not yet.

Your public health and general welfare arguments are made of straw, and are not germane to the discussion of mandatory participation in a private market for the well being of all.

I have no problem with health emergency quarantines. Quarantine me preemptively and mandate that I contract with a private service to receive vaccinations to escape the quarantine, and I have a problem, and, in my understanding, so does the Constitution.

This distinction is important. Discounting these distinctions, and painting them as selfish narcissism is a common tactic of the Statist, Right and Left, to gain control over the population.

@davidgmillsatty

up
1 user has voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

Did we have a choice to reject the polio vaccine? I knew kids that got it and were seriously harmed by it. A neighbor and a classmate. I am that old. Mandating the polio vaccine was never a constitutional issue. And that is what we are talking about. Jonas Salk was a hero.

The government does not have to wait to a major medical catastrophe to mandate you to do something. That is a disaster waiting to happen. The whole idea of vaccines is to prevent a catastrophe in the first place. Once polio was brought under control, the government didn't stop mandating the vaccine.

The constitution allows mandates. To a degree the Constitution is statist. It has to be. By definition.

What do you want? Anarchy?

up
0 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@davidgmillsatty

and always were, right from the get-go. It all started with inoculations against smallpox - the original version used attenuated live virus to give the recipient a (hopefully mild) case of real smallpox. Sometimes the case wasn't mild and the recipient died - but nobody wanted to catch smallpox the "natural" way.

The next step was discovering that the bovine equivalent, cowpox, conferred immunity to smallpox without the same risk.

One disease after another, including serious killers like tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, has been found to be preventable through vaccination - but people being non-homogeneous and idiosyncratic, there is always the risk that the immunization won't "take" or the person may have an adverse reaction.

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Right. And from the government's perspective, mandating vaccines is justified on the basis that they will produce a greater good.

Many people, lawyers included, forget that the preamble of the Constitution, says the the country is being formed for two things: to provide a common defense AND TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PEOPLE.

up
0 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

@k9disc

whether the ACA mandate is unconstitutional--but, I've never supported it.

Let's not forget, Medicare (with a participation rate in the mid-to-high 90's, I've read) did not have a 'mandate' regarding participation in the program. (pre-ACA)

I would argue that if a decent enough insurance product were offered in the Exchanges, it wouldn't be necessary to force folks to buy it.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

up
0 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

@Unabashed Liberal There is usually no need for the government to mandate that a person participate in a government program that benefits the person. One exception might be a risk to the public health. There are probably several others.

up
0 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@k9disc

It gets much worse when there is no contractual obligation to provide actual CARE.

Insurance companies are being paid millions to billions to sell people "affordable" health care, but then they don't actually have to do that because people after paying their high premiums can't afford to pay their deductibles before their insurance kicks in. How many are paying premiums and then also paying out of pocket for treatment?

This racket is exactly that. The mandate is finally gone, but insurance policies keep going up and up and up...

up
7 users have voted.

America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery

Not Henry Kissinger's picture

@k9disc

@k9disc A tithe(/taɪð/; from Old English: teogoþa "tenth") is a one-tenth part of something, paid as a contribution to a religious organization (examples: clergy or churches) or maybe compulsory tax to government.

Quite common in feudal times (surprise, surprise) when the peasants were mandated to give 10% to the Church of whatever the local Lord hadn't already grabbed. A type of privatized tax farming enforced by royal fiat.

Not much daylight between that and Obama's cockamamie health insurance shakedown racket. One difference may be that at least the Church provided last rites when you died. Health insurance companies just send a bill.

up
7 users have voted.

Peace Sells

k9disc's picture

@Not Henry Kissinger

up
4 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@Not Henry Kissinger

up
3 users have voted.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
feudal economics was characterized by a complex and regionally-varying system of rents, fees, and compulsory service. it's impossible to put a flat % on what the peasantry paid the lord, but in fact, i can't find any specific numbers at all, anywhere, so if anyone can dig some up, i'd be interested to see them.

up
3 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@UntimelyRippd
One bowl got filled with grain, then the second bowls worth was taken out for the lord. England. France may have been different.
Irish peasants (pre English invasion) owed military service to the local king as a spearman for a set number of days. Their were several (at least two) levels of kings with unpronounceable (by me) Gaelic titles. So, yes various countries and times had different requirements. 10% was pretty common, I think, because the Church (per-Reformation) owned so much (most in Germany) land in Europe.

up
3 users have voted.

@The Voice In the Wilderness
in many places, tenants were required to have their grain ground at the mill owned by the lord ("thirlage"). in payment, the miller would keep a share of the flour -- but the amount seems to have varied, i found one reference to 1/14, another to 1/24. in any case, that amount was either up to the miller, or the lord, that's not clear to me, but either way the lord took a chunk as the miller's rent on the mill. and from one thing I was reading, it sounded like you were required to bring the grain to the mill, even if you didn't want it ground, because that's where it got measured for whatever taxes and rents you'd get charged beyond the "mulcture" (the milling charge). it was illegal to even own a hand-operated mill, and if you got caught with one they'd confiscate it and break the millstone.

also as you note, part of their "rent" was paid in service -- such as, harvesting the lord's own fields -- so it's pretty hard to figure out what that was; but apparently there was something called "quit-rent", in which you could buy your way out of that obligation.

and so on.

up
2 users have voted.

The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.

@k9disc
require anyone who drives a car to purchase liability insurance from a private company. Sure, you can choose not to drive, but anytime you pay for a ride you're paying for a portion of the driver's insurance.

up
1 user has voted.

@FuturePassed
It's like the state required you to buy a car and only from dealers licensed by the state.
The auto insurance analogy is bogus.

up
2 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

not drive, but choosing to not breathe is a bit different, right?

@FuturePassed

up
1 user has voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@HenryAWallace coming summer 2020

A federal appeals court on Wednesday granted a Trump administration request to expedite oral arguments in a case challenging the legality of the Affordable Care Act.
The new time frame -- with arguments in early July -- means that the fate of Obamacare could come before the Supreme Court next term, with an opinion rendered by June of 2020 in the heart of the presidential campaign.
up
6 users have voted.

@gjohnsit for a few years, I suspect that the SCOTUS will find a way to keep it constitutional, but they will have to do back flips and twist logic in remarkable ways.

up
4 users have voted.
k9disc's picture

if the mandate is dropped. At least in any sane SCOTUS.

I think the mandate is completely unconstitutional, the other stuff doesn't seem to be so offensive to the Constitution.

That said, SCOTUS will do what corporate wants. 40 years of pro-corporate justices (Sotomayor included) will ensure that. They know who calls the shots and govern the country, and it ain't the people and ain't the Constitution.

@Roy Blakeley

up
4 users have voted.

“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu

@k9disc Beginning 2019, at least that's my understanding. Which is basically the same as killing the mandate no?

up
6 users have voted.
Unabashed Liberal's picture

@pro left

ACA Individual Mandate Penalty Reduced to $0 in 2019

05/01/2018

The penalty associated with the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) individual mandate — also known as the act's individual shared responsibility provision — has been reduced to $0 beginning Jan. 1, 2019. This occurs as part of the tax reform bill signed into law by President Trump on Dec. 22, 2017. The change essentially repeals the ACA's individual shared responsibility provision.

Mollie

I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.
~~Gilda Radner, Comedienne

up
4 users have voted.

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.