Obamacare is stronger than ever
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:34 am
and a Trump-backed lawsuit could destroy it
In what rational universe is providing better and more affordable access to medical care for more people (including those with pre-existing conditions) somehow unconstitutional? I find the DOJ case against ACA to be completely specious and really based on nothing more than extreme partisanship and an irrational determination (mainly on Trump's part) to do away with anything having to do with Obama, whether good or bad, out of sheer spite for and jealousy of Obama.
As of a year ago:
The current nominee to replace RGB on the supreme court is, by all accounts, well versed in the law, well respected by both conservatives and progressives and, in most (if not all) respects an admirable person and mother, but if she really is inclined to overturn Obamacare, which despite conservative claims to the contrary, has helped millions of people gain access to healthcare insurance who previously lacked it, and has even saved lives, I have to seriously question her rationality, her human compassion for others less fortunate than herself and her denial of extreme partisanship. If there really is something in the Constitution that invalidates providing more widespread and more affordable healthcare for all, then it needs to be amended, post haste!
Still, I recognize that the ACA has its flaws, but it will have to do until it is replaced by something that is truly and demonstrably better, like the universal healthcare that exists in almost all other highly advanced and developed nations. Trump and his Republican administration, despite their vague assertions, have not come even close to revealing a better, or even a viable alternative.
ETA: As I understand it, the original objection to ACA was the mandate provision, yet the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was not inherently unconstitutional, and ruled against the lawsuit opposing it. Despite that ruling, the mandate provision was dropped, which, logically, should have made ACA less objectionable to its critics. Yet, apparently, its opponents immediately turned around and claimed that the dropping of that provision somehow strengthened their constitutional objection to it! What?? How much more specious can their case get? As I also understand it, Amy Barrett's main disagreement with the original ruling was their approval of the mandate provision. So, now that the mandate has been dropped, why would she still maintain that the ACA is unconstitutional (if she, indeed, does still maintain that opinion)?
In what rational universe is providing better and more affordable access to medical care for more people (including those with pre-existing conditions) somehow unconstitutional? I find the DOJ case against ACA to be completely specious and really based on nothing more than extreme partisanship and an irrational determination (mainly on Trump's part) to do away with anything having to do with Obama, whether good or bad, out of sheer spite for and jealousy of Obama.
As of a year ago:
What, if anything, has changed in the last year to strengthen the justice of the case against Obamacare? Even the argument that medical insurance premiums have increased faster and become less affordable because of Obamacare have been shown to be false, despite efforts by conservatives to make that come true by deliberate attempts to kneecap it.Three years into a presidency that promised to kill Obamacare, the health care law has never been stronger.
Millions of people buying coverage during the enrollment period starting Friday will find that average premiums have dropped across the country. When consumers go to HealthCare.gov, they’ll be paying 4 percent less on average for the most popular health plans — with six states reporting a double-digit decline.
The years of huge rate hikes and insurers abandoning the markets appear to be a thing of the past as the 10th anniversary of the law approaches next spring. Predictions of the Affordable Care Act’s demise — made by President Donald Trump himself and Democrats who criticized administration policies undermining the law — haven’t materialized.
To be clear, Obamacare still faces potential extinction in the judiciary, as a lawsuit pending in federal court could deal a death blow to the law. On top of that, Republicans remain hostile to the law.
“We believe the Affordable Care Act simply doesn’t work,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar told reporters last week. “But until Congress gets around to replacing it, the president will do what he can to fix the problems created by this system for millions of Americans.”
But if you separate the politics from the policy, it’s clear that the Affordable Care Act is maturing. Premiums have moderated, even if plans are still pricey for people not receiving government help. And it is deeply embedded in the American health care system, with over 10 million enrolled in Obamacare plans and millions more benefiting from expanded Medicaid in roughly two-thirds of states.
“To date, the ACA has withstood the gut punches,” said Dave Dillon, a fellow with the Society of Actuaries who consults with states on the law.
The current nominee to replace RGB on the supreme court is, by all accounts, well versed in the law, well respected by both conservatives and progressives and, in most (if not all) respects an admirable person and mother, but if she really is inclined to overturn Obamacare, which despite conservative claims to the contrary, has helped millions of people gain access to healthcare insurance who previously lacked it, and has even saved lives, I have to seriously question her rationality, her human compassion for others less fortunate than herself and her denial of extreme partisanship. If there really is something in the Constitution that invalidates providing more widespread and more affordable healthcare for all, then it needs to be amended, post haste!
Still, I recognize that the ACA has its flaws, but it will have to do until it is replaced by something that is truly and demonstrably better, like the universal healthcare that exists in almost all other highly advanced and developed nations. Trump and his Republican administration, despite their vague assertions, have not come even close to revealing a better, or even a viable alternative.
ETA: As I understand it, the original objection to ACA was the mandate provision, yet the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate was not inherently unconstitutional, and ruled against the lawsuit opposing it. Despite that ruling, the mandate provision was dropped, which, logically, should have made ACA less objectionable to its critics. Yet, apparently, its opponents immediately turned around and claimed that the dropping of that provision somehow strengthened their constitutional objection to it! What?? How much more specious can their case get? As I also understand it, Amy Barrett's main disagreement with the original ruling was their approval of the mandate provision. So, now that the mandate has been dropped, why would she still maintain that the ACA is unconstitutional (if she, indeed, does still maintain that opinion)?