Millions risk losing cover as Justices take up Obamacare Challenge

Are you going to mandate that people do this? If not, what happens to all the people that didn't? They just get shipped to the nearest now-unlicensed doctor?

 

I agree completely with the last line, it's a tricky situation with no palatable easy solution. Without insurance artificially inflating the prices they can get away with charging and guaranteeing they get paid, they'd try and cut corners to stay profitable so in that you're on to something. I wasn't trying to say that eliminating insurance would fix everything, I was just pointing out that it was part of the problem.....a problem without an easy solution.

Federalizing heath care (note I didn't say health insurance) would probably be the best thing to do, but there would be pretty awful consequences of that just like anything else. You'd probably end up with a system where wealthy people would have access to high quality care that they could pay for instead of going with the government option, but most Americans would end up relegated to lower end hospitals/wards/charity hospitals/etc run by the government.

 

Commodore's new doctor.

 

too many believe quality can't exist without the blessing of the state

 

And too many here don't understand that they are vastly overpaying for something most people in the developed world get with much less fuss because their governments don't allow a predatory health private-sector to rape them.

 

SCOTUS decisions dropping at 9AM central today

http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_25_2015

 

Too many can't interpret facts due to their ideology.

 

Subsidies upheld, 6-3.

 

Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan affirm in favor of the Obama administration.

Semantics are a b****, huh?

 

BOOM!

 

Meh... knew this yesterday when Woj scooped it.

 

Was kinda hoping it got overturned, because I thought it could be step one towards a better single payer system.

 

Mr. Obama had some insight on single payer and why he didn't push that in the Maron interview. Basically that all actions actually taken by a democratic governments are compromises, purer or more radical ideas never pass. aka: settle for the best you can actually get instead of fighting for ideology and actually getting nothing. Any positive move is progress.

YEAH! This is good for me.

 

The wingnut's Moops invaded Spain case goes down in flames.

It is a good day.

 

beautiful!

"The message here is clear: In this and in future litigation, judges should turn aside clever attempts to undermine the law if there is any possible way to read the law otherwise. The attorneys and activists behind this lawsuit came to the Court hoping to gut Obamacare; instead, they placed it on the strongest possible legal footing."

 

I don't think as a Constitutional Scholar, Mr. Obama ever had a doubt.

 

From the Roberts opinion, pretty much a massive rebuke of the crazies:

"A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."

 

So does this make Roberts an activist judge? :grin:

 

Anyone that goes against the will of the teabaggers is considered one.

 

Ereyone is an activist judge according to Scalia. That guy can't be gone soon enough.