The Republicans are banking all their hopes on Roberts voting to uphold it again. But with all the changes to the individual mandate and all I don't think he can uphold again using the same twisted logic. I think there is a real chance that this will be struck down in June of next year. And unless the Republicans have a ready response then it is a tailor made issue for the Democrats.
Yeah, 26-year-old “children” and coverage after the fact.
Whatever this is, it ain’t insurance.
Since the mandate was removed, how can it be called either a ‘tax’ or a ‘fine’ if you are not ‘required’ to pay it?................
Republicans: ready, fire, aim.
FAKE NEWS.
Republicans certainly do have a plan, designed to overcome all of the horrors of Obamacare.
Mr. Igor, is a 32 year old Bosnian (maybe Muslim] recent graduate from U. Cal. at Irvine, ”in charge of politics” at huffpo, with parents still living in San Diego, CA.
Maybe he’s buddies with “Sandy Cortez,” the bartender, telling me what I should consider important, at least at huffpo!
What are Republicans supposed to do, so long as a majority of the American public appears to believe that:
1) Healthcare is a RIGHT, and
2) Somebody else should pay for it.
??????
Here’s a plan... If you want something that someone else has to provide, pay for it. If you can’t afford it, there are many options, such as not having it, borrowing for it, saving for it, asking someone else to pay for it, negotiate with the provider... Works for EVERYTHING ELSE in life, including essentials such as food and water.
If Obamacare is struck down, wouldn't that simply mean that we revert back to when the law didn't exist? Wouldn't that mean that private insurers are again free to offer group policies based on risk pools?
-PJ
Whatever happened to the concepts of competition in the insurance market by allowing companies to sell across state lines and tailor plans to individual needs?
One could substitute almost any word for Obamacare in this headline, and it would inevitably be true. The GOP is a phony political party (excluding Trump) that needs to be banished to the ash heap of history. Unless they are going to be a party of limited government, they have no reason to exist since we already have a party of big government, namely the Democrats.
What exactly is sustaining obozocare? When the mandate was lifter that should have been the dagger in the heart for it.
I forget who it was when asked what R’s had to replace Ebolacare said “If you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?” Thomas Sowell, I think.
Seriously, if things are worse now than before passage, then it’s self-evident that standalone repeal would be an improvement.
Now, would there still be room for reform? Sure, but it has to do with damage done by previous rounds of government “help”, not with the minute amount of freedom that survived in the healthcare market pre-ACA.
Reduce costs, reduce taxes, take away the “individual mandate,” but still ensure people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it
The whole problem, succinctly stated, in one clever, incoherent sentence.
The reason the Republicans can't crack this nut, in fact, the reason their party won't exist as a single party by 2024, is that they are divided and unable to be reconciled over the contradiction so ably stated above.
"Ensure people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it"
Let's break it down:
Nobody "wants" "healthcare" (whatever that is). I suppose the author of the sentence means "health insurance".
People either need health care (meaning, hospitalization, surgery, medications, doctor visits, Xrays, MRIs, and nursing services), or they don't. WHEN they need it, they want it (or are too sick to know they do), but when they don't need it, they most certainly don't WANT it.
When people NEED hospitalization, surgery, medications, nursing services and all the rest, (and notice how much people don't want to think about that - they invented the euphemism "healthcare" to describe it) - when they need it, "having the ability to purchase it" is absolutely, totally, 100% completely the last thing on their minds. So is organizing society so that it will be available. What is on patient's minds at the point of need is death, or life - disability and disfigurement, or recovery. They do not know, or care, who pays, or how.
So, the Democrats have resolved the philosophical question that comes before the practical problem. They want to ensure that "healthcare" (by which they mean services) is given to all by the government without regard for ability to purchase (pay for) it. Whether this is right or wrong, smart or stupid, practical or akin to skittles from unicorns is not my point. My point is that they have resolved the contradiction embedded in "lower costs, lower taxes, no mandate, ensure ability to purchase (pay for it) for 100% of the population". The Democrats know what they want, and they are united and determined to have it.
The poor, stupid Republicans, OTOH, are divided about the underlying premise. They really do want health insurance to be cheaper without the lost revenue being made up by taxes, and they want no requirement to have it, BUT they also want "people that want healthcare" (again, whatever that means) to "have the ability to purchase it".
This is incoherent. If hospitals, surgeons, drug manufacturers and nurses do not get paid for their services, they will no longer be available. Many, many people who NEED (and therefore "want") those services cannot pay 1% of what they cost. "Ensuring that people that want healthcare have the ability to purchase it" either means cheap insurance that doesn't cover anything OR nationalization of the resources to deliver care to those who cannot, or will not, pay.
There is no middle ground. The Democrats know what they want. The Republicans don't.
As Sun Tzu said, "It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle."
The Republicans do not have a plan because they do not have a philosophy that can support their opposed goals of more freedom for the well and perfect security for the sick.