Posted on 02/23/2017 9:46:41 AM PST by Hojczyk
That would be a meaningless provision, if it even exists. Congress can always pass a law that overrides any preceding law — either in its entirety or a single provision.
Justice Roberts was right about one thing when he wrote his opinion upholding a key ObamaCare provision. He said something to the effect that "it's not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to fix bad legislation."
He was right. It's the job of Congress to repeal and/or replace the so-called "Affordable Care Act."
Not if he has his way.
There are many conservatives who suspect that Boehner’s prediction may be right.
And, not coincidentally, Obamacare (and Romneycare) were the culmination of fifty years of “reform”, all of which had the purpose of destroying the private sector or making it impossible for the private sector to function, except for boob jobs and a few other things. And, by 2009, the mission was largely accomplished.
Health care as we've known it in the U.S. was inevitably going to collapse -- and it had nothing to do with the "reform" you describe here. In fact, the "reform" was a futile attempt to address the single biggest flaw in our health care system: the underlying expectation that all costs would be paid through third parties.
There isn't a single product or service in the U.S. that meets any objective definition of "affordable" when it is routinely financed through third-party payments -- regardless of whether the "third party" is an insurance company or a government agency. You can put everything from health care to education to aircraft carriers in this mix.
The simple truth is that things are "affordable" by definition when people pay for it out of their own pockets. That's how we end up with iPhones that can fit in our pockets and have more computing power than the Apollo 11 spacecraft.
I suspect one big reason why the Republicans in Congress have no “repeal and/or replace” legislation ready is that they never anticipated a scenario in 2017 that included the Republicans controlling both houses of Congress and Donald Trump in the White House.
Well, I hate to quibble with your excellent post - of course, you are right about third-party payment - but the reformers have been gnawing at the foundations since the 1930s, with the goal of full nationalization, and their victory, now inevitable, has been ASSISTED by the phenomena you describe - but the "reforms" could have, all on their own, destroyed what we had.
We could go back to that tomorrow, and health care would be so inexpensive that most people wouldn't even need insurance. In fact, "full nationalization" of health care under that scenario would be about as effective as a full nationalization of fast-food restaurants. Most people would simply ignore it, and it would go away quietly.
Of course, this would also mean that anything more complicated than a broken bone would usually be fatal, and 95% of the medical procedures that are considered "routine" nowadays would no longer exist.
No, but he can propose a plan, then use his position to lead congress to enact it. Presidents do it all the time. After all, it wasn't called Democratic Congress Care.
It never should have been called "Obamacare" in the first place. It should have been called "Pelosicare," because it was written by the lobbyists who owned Nancy Pelosi and her fellow members of Congress at the time.
I don’t see Ryno or McTurtle repealing Ocare. They will just try to fix it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.