Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, December 19, 2019

A federal appeals court on Wednesday struck down Obamacare's individual mandate in a decision that immediately thrusts the health care law to the forefront of the 2020 elections. However, the appeals court ruling largely ducked the central question of whether the rest of the Affordable Care Act remained valid after Congress removed the penalty for not having health insurance.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Congress already passed legislation eliminating the individual mandate's tax, so the net result of this ruling is zero.

When something that no longer exists is ruled unconstitutional, how can the courts then take that ruling and say that the entire law is broken, when it currently exists in the same state, unaffected by the Court's ruling though specific legislation passed by Congress?

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 07:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Didn't the Supreme Court already rule it was constitutional as a tax? Confused.

#2 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-12-19 11:34 AM | Reply

#1 That wasn't the argument.

When something that no longer exists is ruled unconstitutional,

The ACA still exists, which has restrictions on the insurance companies, which in theory "worked" when the mandate penalty existed.

The argument is that since this tax/penalty is eliminated (No mandate), the structure of the ACA law in its entirety is invalidated, and unable to sustain itself. Without the Mandate its impossible for insurance companies to survive.

There's a reason Obamacare defense is challenging.

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-19 12:16 PM | Reply

0bama's legacy is being erased... Poof. #MAGA

#4 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-12-19 12:26 PM | Reply

What an accomplishment, Trumpturds!

Do you feel healthier already?

#5 | Posted by anton at 2019-12-19 12:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Obamacare"

It ceased being Obamacare the day Trump started cutting off the legs by threatening to not honor the subsidies.

It's Trumpcare now.

Besides, a mandate without a penalty is nothing but an empty threat. It's the equivalent of a stop sign in a town not allowed to write tickets for running a stop sign.

#6 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 12:29 PM | Reply

I wonder if those that paid fines will get refunds?

#7 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-19 12:29 PM | Reply

Now it's Trumps fault for writing the bill without considering legal implications. Man, Democrats are cowards

#8 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-19 12:31 PM | Reply

Looks like millions of people could be thrown off their healthcare with no backup plan because of this ruling ...Congratulation Trumpers..you must be so happy ( unless ofcourse you need healthcare)

#9 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-12-19 12:34 PM | Reply

It is Trumps fault for having his attorney general not defend the law... and for sueing to have it overturned.

#10 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-12-19 12:35 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Another presumption. Sure gets old from the Crystal Ball Party

#11 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-19 12:41 PM | Reply

Back in the Heritage Foundation/Romneycare days, the argument was framed as an issue of personal responsibility. As soon as Dems agreed, the Republican argument shifted to government takeover.

Survey after survey showed folks in favor of eight of the nine aspects, including no lifetime caps, no exclusions for PEC, and kids 25 and under covered on their parents' plans. The only aspect that polled negatively was the mandate, which actuaries will tell you is vital to the plan; the Heritage Fo0undation knew as much.

Two interesting facts: At one point, 32% of Republicans were in favor of The Affordable Care Act, but only 16% favored Obamacare. And the first time approval of O'Care topped 50%, it was when Republicans wanted to take it away.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Vote Dem if you want affordable Healthcare.

It's that simple.

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-19 12:45 PM | Reply

Back in the Heritage Foundation/Romneycare days

It was a single member of the Heritage Foundation who wrote in favor of an individual mandate.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-19 12:46 PM | Reply

It was a single member of the Heritage Foundation who wrote in favor of an individual mandate.

#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Didn't Gingrich endorse it as well?

#15 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-19 12:50 PM | Reply

--Vote Dem if you want affordable Healthcare.

It's that simple..."

To a simpleton. Let me know when pharma-Democrats support importation of prescription drugs.

#16 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 12:50 PM | Reply

Republicans are scum

#17 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-19 12:52 PM | Reply

#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

www.forbes.com

One such bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R., R.I.) and co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time. The HEART Act proposed health insurance vouchers for low-income individuals, along with an individual mandate.

Wow... how easily to jump from a single person to almost half of the GOP Senators.

#18 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-19 12:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Merry Christmas, Truthhurts. Hope all is well

#19 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-19 12:56 PM | Reply

I have health insurance so I will have a merry old Christmas. For many Americans, Republican actions will put them in danger of health care problems.

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-19 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If we assume this court ruling represents the final word on the mandate, where does this leave Obamacare for the future?

Remember, insurance companies for a long time have been allowed to implement pre-existing condition rules that allow them to not cover certain claims if the insured failed to have continuous coverage in place prior to purchasing coverage with them.

Obamacare took that protection way but the give-back was a mandate...which solves that problem.

Now, without the mandate, where are we? Certainly the carriers are going to be able to reject coverage for folks who haven't maintained continuous coverage......which is what we had before and nobody was happy.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 01:00 PM | Reply

To a simpleton. Let me know when pharma-Democrats support importation of prescription drugs.

#16 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

theintercept.com

13 Republicans joined Sanders and a majority of Democrats in supporting the amendment, while 13 Democrats and a majority of Republicans opposed it.

But why would you let pesky little things like "facts" destroy your carefully cultivated pet narrative?

#22 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-19 01:02 PM | Reply

Republicans get chubbies taking healthcare away from sick children.

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-19 01:02 PM | Reply

So democrats with children won't purchase healthcare insurance unless they're threatened with a fine?

How sad is that?

#24 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-12-19 01:03 PM | Reply

No mandate outrage? Why?
We're all gonna have free medicare next year anyways. They promised.

#25 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-12-19 01:05 PM | Reply

Keep in mind the leader of the republican party stole money from sick children.

#26 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-19 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not to worry! The GOP replacement plan is...right...here...somewhere, just as we promised in 2016! It's really good--you'll see. You're gonna love it, and the Republicans who brought it to you. (-------- around...here...somewhere. Somebody must have moved it...)
--Paul "Eddie Munster" Ryan, et alia

We've got a phenomenal plan for healthcare. The GOP is the party of healthcare!
--Shrieking Orange lunatic

Ever read the book "Logan's Run"? No? good...
--GOP Sandman squads

#27 | Posted by catdog at 2019-12-19 01:08 PM | Reply

"Looks like millions of people could be thrown off their healthcare with no backup plan because of this ruling"

Correction with truth this time:
Looks like millions of people could *choose to* opt out of their healthcare with no backup plan because of this ruling.

#28 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-12-19 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Soylent Green"

-The Republican Healthcare and Poverty Plan

#29 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-19 01:10 PM | Reply

#21 | POSTED BY EBERLY

I don't think it really changes anything. There was already a lawsuit that challenged Obamacare on pretty much the same basis after Congress reduced the mandate to $0. The plaintiffs argued that was effectively a repeal, which should invalidate the rest of Obamacare since the mandate was not separable. If I recall correctly, the courts decided that Congress had affirmatively decided to get rid of the mandate, but did not decide to repeal Obamacare, which basically means Congress was saying that it WAS separable.

So, ironically, if this ruling stands and the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, it looks like the fact that Republicans previously legislatively reduced the mandate to $0 (effectively a repeal) would actually SAVE the rest of Obamacare. Lol.

#30 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-19 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We're all gonna have free medicare next year anyways. They promised.

#25 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Biden has not promised universal healthcare. And he is still the frontrunner. So your comment is just stupid.

#31 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-12-19 01:12 PM | Reply

"If you just drink a tall glass of Gold Juice each morning, you'll never be under the weather!"
-Ray

#32 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2019-12-19 01:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

We're all gonna have free medicare next year anyways. They promised.
#25 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

That would require republicans acting in the best interest of the American people. Since the Republicans are the Party of Cancer, I suppose that ain't going to happen.

#33 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-12-19 01:15 PM | Reply

0bama's legacy is being erased... Poof. #MAGA

#4 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

And we return to a time where adequate medical care is out of reach for millions and a financial death knell for millions of others.

So yeah, #MAGA.

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 01:18 PM | Reply

The Fifth Circuit is easily the most activist rightwing federal appellate out there. Even they wouldn't swallow the crackpot theory advanced by the lower court judge, and basically punted it back to him. Here's a snip from a very good analysis of the case:

Briefly, the plaintiffs argued the individual mandate " or, at least, the shell that remains of it " is unconstitutional. They then argued that the courts should repeal the entire Affordable Care Act because of this alleged defect in one provision of the law.

The plaintiffs' legal reasoning in Texas isn't simply rejected by liberal and centrist legal experts " it's even rejected by many lawyers who spent a good part of their career trying to convince federal courts to repeal Obamacare.

Jonathan Adler, a conservative law professor and one of the leading evangelists for an earlier lawsuit seeking to undercut the Affordable Care Act, labeled many of these latest arguments against Obamacare "implausible," "hard to justify," and "surprisingly weak."

Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, another conservative lawyer who fought hard to destroy Obamacare in previous cases, wrote that he was "quite skeptical" that even a very conservative appeals court would embrace the plaintiffs' legal arguments in Texas.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board labeled this lawsuit the "Texas ObamaCare Blunder."

Yuval Levin, a prominent conservative commentator, wrote at the National Review that the Texas lawsuit "doesn't even merit being called silly. It's ridiculous."

And yet the litigation survives another day " at least until O'Connor, a former Republican Senate staffer known for handing down rulings that implement the GOP's policy preferences, takes another crack at the case.
www.vox.com

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-19 01:32 PM | Reply

30

Thanks...that's kind of what I thought but I don't see the big picture very well on this.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 01:34 PM | Reply

The fact of the matter is, when the GOP controlled both the House, Senate and Presidency, they could have repealed the entire ACA. They chose not to, and instead chose only to repeal the individual mandate. For a judge to rule that this action somehow invalidated the entire ACA turns the doctrine of severability on its head.

When courts strike down part of a law, they examine what hypothetical law Congress would have passed had they known this particular provision was invalid. That inquory is entirely unnecessary in this case, because Congress already answered the question: they carved the individual mandate out of the law by making the fine $0 because that is all they had the votes to do. So for the remaining shell of a mandate to be ruled unconstitutional changes nothing. We know exactly what Congress would have done without the mandate because we saw what they did - they left the rest of the ACA intact.

#37 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-19 01:40 PM | Reply

#36

Same thing I said in the first post.

#38 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 01:40 PM | Reply

I find it hard to get overwrought about this. The people wailing doom over this are the same ones who were wailing doom over net neutrality.

#39 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-12-19 01:53 PM | Reply

38

yes....I agree.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 02:00 PM | Reply

what sucks about all of this is that the true success of Obamacare would be measured and acknowledged as a significant drop in the number of Americans without health insurance coverage.

We all agreed the number was too high, the rest of us are paying for that, and we need a system that reduces that number.

The mandate was a factor we hoped would lower that number.

My concern is that our high number of uninsureds will continue to plague our system and drive the costs for the rest of us even worse than before.

#41 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 02:09 PM | Reply

0bama's legacy is being erased... Poof. #MAGA

#4 | Posted by visitor_

You'll never be able to erase the part that you hate the most - that there was a black guy in the oval office.

#42 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-19 02:10 PM | Reply

I looked O'Connor up.

Scary thought that Trump is stacking courts all over the country with this type of judge.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-19 02:12 PM | Reply

"It was a single member of the Heritage Foundation who wrote in favor of an individual mandate."

You're missing the point: EVERY TIME folks have been sequestered in a room until they made the equation work, they ALWAYS came down to a mandate.

When Rs were the authors, the central reason was "personal responsibility", especially after Reagan had said--rightfully--we don't/won't turn people away at hospitals or ERs. It was only once the Dems agreed that Rs suddenly had a sheet fit, and screamed Gub'mint Takeover!!!

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"could opt out of their healthcare with no backup plan because of this ruling."

Oh there's a backup plan: it's charge YOU AND ME. That's why the mandate used to be all about personal responsibility.

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 02:23 PM | Reply

especially after Reagan had said--rightfully--we don't/won't turn people away at hospitals or ERs.

"How many times have I told you people not to mention that name EVER again except to express your desire to piss on his grave!!!"

-Danni

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"My concern is that our high number of uninsureds will continue to plague our system and drive the costs for the rest of us even worse than before."

That's the Trumpcare Plan.

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 02:26 PM | Reply

Did he tell you that or more speculation from a hater? You goofs should work for the Weather Channel. At least you'd have a chance of being right.

#48 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-19 02:47 PM | Reply

Are you all getting wet like ACA was repealed? No, like children you spin it into something to get candy. Idiots who fantasize

#49 | Posted by wisgod at 2019-12-19 02:50 PM | Reply

"Did he tell you that or more speculation from a hater? "

Neither. More like an observation from someone who was elected a Trustee of a Health Insurance plan in 2011, who, after spending well over a decade on health committees, knows how the equation works and what actions turn the macro dials one way or another.

And your bona fides?

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 03:00 PM | Reply

0bama's legacy is being erased... Poof. #MAGA
#4 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Yes, that horrible legacy of making healthcare affordable and available to millions of Americans. How does he sleep at night?

#51 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2019-12-19 03:03 PM | Reply

""How many times have I told you people not to mention that name EVER again except to express your desire to piss on his grave!!!"
-Danni"

Though I don't ever remember using those exact words I'll happily take the credit for saying it anyway. The more you know about Ronald Reagan the more you will hate Ronald Reagan. He wasn't fit to lick the boots of the President he replaced through treasonous acts of dealing with our enemy to get them to hold the hostages until after the inauguration. Fully 444 days those Americans were held just so Reagan could have an advantage in the 1980 election, Carter was ahead of him in the polls before that crisis. I have a feeling many of those hostages would join in the great pissing baptism of Ronnie Raygun. Perhaps enough piss would wash away his sins.

#52 | Posted by danni at 2019-12-19 03:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--from someone who was elected a Trustee of a Health Insurance plan in 2011...

Did I ever tell you how I solved the Penge Bungalow murder case?

--Horace Rumpole

#53 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-19 03:07 PM | Reply

"Did I ever tell you how I solved the Penge Bungalow murder case?"

By not knowing anything, not learning how to research, and ignoring common sense?

"Rumpole"

A gal I used to date was house sitting for two folks who adopted a St. Bernard puppy right before they left for a round-the-world cruise. Since they were lawyers, they named the pup Rumpole. I'd never witnessed it before, but there were times we'd take a nap, and the dog was bigger when we woke up.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 03:12 PM | Reply

"Congress already passed legislation eliminating the individual mandate's tax, so the net result of this ruling is zero."

^
Came here to say just that.
Also worth mentioning: Life expectancy was most adversely impacted in states that didn't opt for Medicaid Expansion, and Republicans are fine with that outcome.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 03:21 PM | Reply

Can't a person still wait until they get sick to buy health insurance?
What does the panel of DR experts have to say on preexisting conditions?

#56 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 03:55 PM | Reply

"Can't a person still wait until they get sick to buy health insurance?"

Not on the way to the ER. Nor retroactively.

Here are the top ten reasons folks end up in the ER. Most (at least seven) are "E"s.

Difficulty breathing, shortness of breath
Chest or upper abdominal pain or pressure
Fainting, sudden dizziness, weakness
Changes in vision
Confusion or changes in mental status
Any sudden or severe pain
Uncontrolled bleeding
Severe or persistent vomiting or diarrhea
Coughing or vomiting blood
Suicidal or homicidal feelings

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 04:03 PM | Reply

"What does the panel of DR experts have to say on preexisting conditions?"

In countries with Universal Coverage, PECs is simply referred to as "your medical history".

PECs was coined so that insurers could refuse to cover folks they thought weren't favorable enough for their bottom line.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

---- i miss you wisgod,you crack me up! i might be moving to cedar rapids iowa. i'd be more than happy to drive up to wi and have a beer with ya.

#59 | Posted by cjk85 at 2019-12-19 04:22 PM | Reply

-Can't a person still wait until they get sick to buy health insurance?

Obamacare created an open enrollment period that waived any pre-existing condition coverage limitation.

but not sure if that's still the case.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-19 04:24 PM | Reply

You'll never be able to erase the part that you hate the most - that there was a black guy in the oval office.
#42 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Cut the crap, here is the Truth:
You'll never be able to erase the part that you hate the most - that there IS an orange guy in the oval office.

#61 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-12-19 04:38 PM | Reply

"Can't a person still wait until they get sick to buy health insurance?"

How did you make it to... whatever age you are, and not know what "Open Enrollment" is?
Perhaps the simplest explanation is you do not live or work in America.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 04:43 PM | Reply

Ray with a roll of quarters, trying to buy health insurance in the ER waiting room, like they used to sell life insurance out of vending machines at the airport.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 04:47 PM | Reply

Thank God I have my union insurance. Top of the line.

#64 | Posted by byrdman at 2019-12-19 04:52 PM | Reply

How did you make it to... whatever age you are, and not know what "Open Enrollment" is?
Perhaps the simplest explanation is you do not live or work in America.
#62 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Since you ask. Age 77. Haven't had health insurance in at least 30 years. It's useless to me.
Food is a far superior medicine.

#65 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 04:55 PM | Reply

Too bad the rest of America doesn't have your union insurance. But then, do second-class citizens really deserve it?

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 04:56 PM | Reply

"Haven't had health insurance in at least 30 years"

You denied your Medicare and Social Security benefits, or you never qualified for them?

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 04:57 PM | Reply

"Haven't had health insurance in at least 30 years. It's useless to me."

Translation: When it's my turn, I'm sticking OTHERS with the bill.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:00 PM | Reply

#68 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Why am I not surprised by that reaction.

You denied your Medicare and Social Security benefits, or you never qualified for them?
#67 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

No. Medicare part A comes with SS for free. Unless I have a serious injury, I have no intention of using it.

#69 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 05:41 PM | Reply

"Why am I not surprised by that reaction."

Because it's the truth, and based on actual math. Exactly what you'd expect of me.

#70 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 05:45 PM | Reply

Oh, so you do have health insurance.

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 06:07 PM | Reply

Because it's the truth, and based on actual math. Exactly what you'd expect of me.

Since you're the expert, if I don't have insurance, how am I going to stick others with the bill?

#72 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 06:11 PM | Reply

"if I don't have insurance"

You just said you had Medicare Part A.

Hypothetically, you stick others with the bill when you get rushed to the ER that you can't pay for.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 06:13 PM | Reply

Oh, so you do have health insurance.

I don't think about it. But yes, you're right.

This is where Danforth jumps all over me.

I'm going to enjoy this.

#74 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 06:18 PM | Reply

Hypothetically, you stick others with the bill when you get rushed to the ER that you can't pay for.
#73 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Let me see if I get this right.

If I use is, I'm sticking others with the bill.
But if you or Danforth use it, it's the price we pay for civilization.

I get it.

#75 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 06:21 PM | Reply

"This is where Danforth jumps all over me."

Not at all; I'm glad you have Medicare; Part A is hospital coverage.

But if you run up medical bills you can't pay, the rest of us are stuck with your tab. You'll admit that's how it works, right?

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 06:24 PM | Reply

"Let me see if I get this right. If I use is, I'm sticking others with the bill."

No...if you use it AND YOU CAN'T PAY, you're sticking others with the bill.

"But if you or Danforth use it, it's the price we pay for civilization."

If I have bought or earned coverage, yes. If I don't, I'm risking others.

"I get it."

Clearly you don't. And since you've only got ~40% of the money you should have at this point, you're a greater risk to society, from an actuarial standpoint.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 06:29 PM | Reply

No...if you use it AND YOU CAN'T PAY, you're sticking others with the bill.

Another reason to own gold.

Sticking others with the bill. That sounds like Obamacare.

If I have bought or earned coverage, yes. If I don't, I'm risking others.

How quickly you forget the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote. "Taxes are the prices we pay for civilization."

#78 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 06:48 PM | Reply

"Sticking others with the bill. That sounds like Obamacare."

Worse.
It's how all insurance works.

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 07:06 PM | Reply

It's how all insurance works.
#79 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

With the difference that Obamacare is mandatory, market insurance is voluntary.

In fact, Obamacare was pushed by the insurance lobby. The needed health payers to boost their profits.

It's just another welfare system like SS promoted as equal to private insurance.

#80 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 07:20 PM | Reply

That "difference" doesn't change anything about how insurance functions as a financial instrument.

Also, you're smart enough to see, the more people insured, the stronger the economies of scale operate to reduce cost.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 07:23 PM | Reply

"It's just another welfare system"

General welfare, even.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 07:25 PM | Reply

"like SS promoted as equal to private insurance."

^
Sounds like you have some pretty serious financial literacy problems.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 07:27 PM | Reply

"Another reason to own gold."

Not unless you're trying to bury it in the backyard to falsely claim poverty. But if you're NOT trying to be a deadbeat, gold is a terrible investment, at least in the last 8 years, where it's lost ground while a basic index fund has almost tripled.

"Sticking others with the bill. That sounds like Obamacare."

Good God, man you have NO IDEA what you're talking about, do you? O'Care was the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.

"like SS promoted as equal to private insurance."

Aannnnnnnnd....you just proved it beyond any doubt. SS has NOTHING to do with health insurance. NO WONDER you'll fall for anything, as long as it's dumb enough.

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 07:34 PM | Reply

Sounds like you have some pretty serious financial literacy problems.

What don't you understand about the word, "promoted"? You can call them insurance programs. But when they are financed as welfare programs, they are welfare programs.

Also, you're smart enough to see, the more people insured, the stronger the economies of scale operate to reduce cost.
#81 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Not when SS and Medicare operate on the model of a Ponzi scheme.

#85 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 07:36 PM | Reply

O'Care was the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.

What? The topic of this thread is about the Obamacare mandate. The intent was to force healthy people to buy insurance.

SS has NOTHING to do with health insurance

Like hell! They are both promoted as insurance. They both financed as welfare programs. They are both Ponzi schemes.

#86 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 07:44 PM | Reply

"The intent was to force healthy people to buy insurance."

ALL people. Including wannabe deadbeats like you.

"Like hell! They are both promoted as insurance."

Not HEALTH insurance, you blithering idiot.

"They are both Ponzi schemes."

So you're a moron AND an idiot.

SS is NOT a Ponzi scheme, which are always opaque and never transparent. SS is an EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION, with money coming in and money going out. Plus, the methods ARE transparent, and the equation CAN be set to work, unlike a Ponzi scheme where there IS NO way to make it work.

You put the MORE in moron.

#87 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 07:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"The intent was to force healthy people to buy insurance."

There's that "economies of scale" thing again.
Perhaps you don't understand it...

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 07:53 PM | Reply

"Sounds like you have some pretty serious financial literacy problems."

Ray??? He's a financial illiterate. He's not only lost money over the last 8 years, while a basic index fund has almost tripled, but he thinks that's GOOD, because gold is now CHEAPER.

He's admitted he doesn't understand yields, diversification, dividend reinvestment, or how mutual funds work. He'd rather LOSE MONEY than admit he's been wrong.

#89 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 07:54 PM | Reply

'Not when SS and Medicare operate on the model of a Ponzi scheme."

They're not Ponzi schemes because you can't buy shares, or sell shares, or bequeath your shares in your will.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 07:56 PM | Reply

"What don't you understand about the word, "promoted"?"

I understand that Congress has a Constitutional directive to promote the general welfare.

Do you?

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 07:59 PM | Reply

#87

I wish I could put 15 years of NW flags on this post.

#92 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-12-19 08:11 PM | Reply

ALL people. Including wannabe deadbeats like you.

"All" translates into healthy people who saw no value in paying for health insurance. I remember when you leftists were moaning about the "uninsured."

SS is NOT a Ponzi scheme,

And you bill yourself as a financial expert. What a joke.

It was conceived at a time when the population was growing and life expediencies were much lower than they are today. More money was coming in than going out. For the federal government, it was free money. Now that the growth rate of retirees is faster than birth rates, it's only a matter of time before the system defaults. THAT is what a Ponzi scheme looks like.

EQUILIBRIUM EQUATION, with money coming in and money going out

That's how welfare systems are financed. It's illegal for private insurers to do that.

So you're a moron AND an idiot.

Thank you.

#93 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 08:21 PM | Reply

He's admitted he doesn't understand yields, diversification, dividend reinvestment, or how mutual funds work. He'd rather LOSE MONEY than admit he's been wrong.
#89 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Don't have to. I'm very good at recognizing Ponzi schemes, scams, frauds and corruption.

You're playing with people more cunning than you.

#94 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 08:29 PM | Reply

"Now that the growth rate of retirees is faster than birth rates, it's only a matter of time before the system defaults. THAT is what a Ponzi scheme looks like."

Okay, I'll type slower so you'll understand: SS is an equilibrium equation; money is coming in and money is going out. At the nadir of workers-to-retirees, roughly 70%-77% can still be paid out. A ONE POINT increase in both the worker's and the employer's withholding today, would put the equation into balance for the next 75 years, which actuaries call "perpetuity". Calling it a Ponzi scheme is just you admitting you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is, and how they (don't) work. Ponzi schemes can NEVER put the equation back into balance. SS can, quite easily.

"And you bill yourself as a financial expert. What a joke"

Coming from a self-admitted financial illiterate, I'll wear your stupidity like a badge of honor.

#95 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 08:30 PM | Reply

I understand that Congress has a Constitutional directive to promote the general welfare.
Do you?
#91 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I'm positive you have no clue what the Founders meant by that term.

#96 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 08:32 PM | Reply

"You're playing with people more cunning than you."

Not if I know when to get in, and when to get out.

"Don't have to. I'm very good at recognizing Ponzi schemes, scams, frauds and corruption."

You can't even properly describe a Ponzi scheme. And you've lost money over the last 8 years while I've more than tripled mine. You're clearly too embarrassed to admit how wrong your predictions were, and can't even admit that LOSING MONEY is WORSE than TRIPLING IT.

But at least you graduated top of your class from Dunning-Kruger.

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 08:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Tell us what "promote the general welfare" means, Ray!

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 08:37 PM | Reply

Coming from a self-admitted financial illiterate, I'll wear your stupidity like a badge of honor.
#95 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Isn't it fascinating how we're always on the opposite side of every argument.

#99 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 08:38 PM | Reply

"Isn't it fascinating how we're always on the opposite side of every argument."

Not when you take the stupid side every time.

Watch: Gold over the last 8 years: GOOD idea, or -------- idea?

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 08:40 PM | Reply

Tell us what "promote the general welfare" means, Ray!
#98 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Look it up yourself. I'll give you a hint. Welfare as we know it today began during the Progressive Era.

#101 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 08:41 PM | Reply

Not when you take the stupid side every time.

It's more like bet against the socialists. They screw up everything they touch.

Obamacare is the latest iteration to make socialized medicine work.

The more you people fail, the harder you try to make a failed system work.

There's a saying about the definition of a moron as one who makes the same mistake over and over again.

#102 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 08:56 PM | Reply

"There's a saying about the definition of a moron as one who makes the same mistake over and over again."

That's Einstein's definition of insanity. But enough about you buying gold over the last 8 years, when burying the cash in a hole in the backyard would've served you better.

"Obamacare is the latest iteration to make socialized medicine work."

Oh, great...so you're not just ignorant about what's going on in America, you're ignorant about the entire civilized world.

"It's more like bet against the socialists. They screw up everything they touch."

So if you know better, why did you lose money while people you sneer at tripled theirs? Oh, right...You take the stupid side every time.. And you're actually surprised we're on opposite ends?!?

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 09:18 PM | Reply

Tell us what "promote the general welfare" means, Ray!
#98 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Look it up yourself.
#101 | POSTED BY RAY

^
Stay in school, kids!

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 09:29 PM | Reply

"Obamacare is the latest iteration to make socialized medicine work."

"Socialized Medicine" is a marketing term invented by the American Medical Association designed to prey on fears of Socialism, that has since been adopted as a Republican and Capitalist propaganda term.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 09:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

enough about you buying gold over the last 8 years

I've repeatedly said 15 years.

why did you lose money while people you sneer at tripled theirs

I haven't lost money. And I've said both gold and stocks are a good place to be now. I've always said that for me, safety is paramount. Stocks are too risky.

Gold has a low downside risk. Stocks are overpriced. So what remains to be seen if you know when to get out when they turn down again.

Oh, great...so you're not just ignorant about what's going on in America, you're ignorant about the entire civilized world.

Here's a history lesson you haven't learned. Socialism doesn't work. Has never worked. And can't be made to work. Your beloved Obamacare is just another name for socialized medicine.

#106 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 09:57 PM | Reply

"Socialized Medicine" is a marketing term invented by the American Medical Association designed to prey on fears of Socialism, that has since been adopted as a Republican and Capitalist propaganda term.
#105 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

When the State takes control, it's socialized. What the State did was subvert free market forces with taxes and price controls. Since Medicare was enacted into law, health care costs have risen faster than GDP.

A capitalist system, properly understood, implies without government interference.

#107 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 10:07 PM | Reply

" for me, safety is paramount."

Putting your money in a mattress 8 years ago would've been safer.

"Gold has a low downside risk."

You've lost money over the last 8 years, while an index fund has almost tripled. You clearly don't fully understand "downside risk"

"Stocks are overpriced."

Maybe, but they're 200% higher than your gold over the last 8 years.

"I haven't lost money."

You have in the last 8 years. That means it was a good investment for 7 years, and a ------ one for 8.

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 10:13 PM | Reply

"Here's a history lesson you haven't learned. Socialism doesn't work."

It does in areas where the free market doesn't work, like health care. The business model for health sets every other business model on its head.

I get you're an ignoramus on this, and many topics. Keep pretending you're the only one who knows, RayDow1400. You have a SPECTACULAR string of idiocy in your wake, and you're convinced it's everyone else who's wrong.

Make no mistake...those two things are completely intertwined.

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 10:16 PM | Reply

"When the State takes control, it's socialized. "

The government hasn't "taken control". Private insurance companies report record profits every year.

Good God, man, is there no end to your idiocy?

#110 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 10:18 PM | Reply

The government hasn't "taken control". Private insurance companies report record profits every year.

Yes. Because private insurance companies and Big Pharma are government protected monopolies.

It does in areas where the free market doesn't work, like health care. The business model for health sets every other business model on its head.

You have no idea how and why free markets work. By transferring the cost of of medical care from doctor and patient to a third party, neither patients nor doctors have reason to care about costs. Under current law, doctors risk losing their license if don't follow protocol. Doctors are disallowed from prescribing natural remedies.

You've lost money over the last 8 years

More than offset by the gains of the previous 7 years.

Good God, man, is there no end to your idiocy?

It would be nice to have an adult to adult conversation. You can't do that.

#111 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 10:47 PM | Reply

BTW, here's a good article on vaccines.

blog.nomorefakenews.com

#112 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-19 10:49 PM | Reply

" private insurance companies and Big Pharma are government protected monopolies."

Then that's NOT socialized. Once again, you've proven you don't understand the definitions of the words you're barfing.

"You have no idea how and why free markets work.

Says the guy who admits he doesn't know how markets work. Too fuggin' rich.

"Doctors are disallowed from prescribing natural remedies."

Nonsense. They're disallowed from practicing discredited or whackadoodle medicine, Mr. Anti-Vaxx.

"(Losses) More than offset by the gains of the previous 7 years."

That's not how ongoing investments work. If you've lost money in the last 8 years, it's because you made bad investment choices.

"It would be nice to have an adult to adult conversation. You can't do that."

Not with you. One of us can't even admit losing money over the last 8 years is worse than tripling it.

#113 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 10:56 PM | Reply

"here's a good article on vaccines. "

Called "No More Fake News." Bwahahahahahah! You'll fall for ANYTHING, as long as it's dumb enough. You're like Suzanne Somers, just without the beauty or the mastered thighs.

You do have her brains though: she had a thought once...and it died of loneliness.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 10:58 PM | Reply

"here's a good article on vaccines."

From a guy who cites a "researcher" who RETIRED IN THE 1990s, OVER 20 YEARS AGO, and won't even allow his real name to be used.

Do you even read the crapppp you're peddling? Or did you actually read it, and actually fall for it?

#115 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-19 11:02 PM | Reply

"When the State takes control, it's socialized"

No, that's called "nationalized."
"Socialized" is a word to describe the process you missed out on as a child, where you learn to get along with others.

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 11:11 PM | Reply

"A capitalist system, properly understood, implies without government interference."

So, no prescription only medicines, no regulations of hospitals, no licensing of doctors...

What's most interesting about all this is you. You can't conceive of why doctors don't think it's a good idea to practice medicine without any oversight.

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-19 11:14 PM | Reply

Another day with the angry socialists on DR.

#118 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-20 06:50 AM | Reply

It was a single member of the Heritage Foundation who wrote in favor of an individual mandate.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-12-19 12:46 PM | REPLY

www.forbes.com

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate

Republican support for the individual mandate

As far as I have been able to find, Stuart's 1989 brief is the first published proposal of an individual mandate in the context of private-sector-managed health systems. In 1991, Mark Pauly and others developed a proposal for George H.W. Bush that also included an individual mandate. While others credit Stanford economist Alain Enthoven with the idea, Enthoven's earliest published reference to an individual mandate was an indirect one in the 1992 Jackson Hole paper.

In 1992 and 1993, some Republicans in Congress, seeking an alternative to Hillarycare, used these ideas as a foundation for their own health-reform proposals. One such bill, the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993, or HEART, was introduced in the Senate by John Chafee (R., R.I.) and co-sponsored by 19 other Senate Republicans, including Christopher Bond, Bob Dole, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Richard Lugar, Alan Simpson, and Arlen Specter. Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time. The HEART Act proposed health insurance vouchers for low-income individuals, along with an individual mandate.

Newt Gingrich, who was House Minority Leader in 1993, was also in favor of an individual mandate in those days. Gingrich continued to support a federal individual mandate as recently as May of last year

#119 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-20 12:24 PM | Reply

"The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate"

Once reality and Actual Math are confronted, every "think tank" tasked with Universal Coverage has ALWAYS included a mandate.

Amazing what happens when you have to actually balance an actual equation.

#120 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 12:30 PM | Reply

Another day with the angry socialists on DR.

#118 | POSTED BY RAY

Another day trying to explain math to angry Republican idiots.

#121 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-20 02:53 PM | Reply

Ray says he doesn't need insurance and food will protect him but who does he expect to pay his medical bills if he gets injured? I mean what if he breaks his hip slipping on ice or if an armed vigilante enters his home and attacks him? Does he expect the taxpayers to pay for his surgeries? Ray don't be foolish you need insurance.

#122 | Posted by byrdman at 2019-12-20 03:09 PM | Reply

"Does he expect the taxpayers to pay for his surgeries? "

Of course he does. He's Ayn Rand, without the intelligence.

#123 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-20 03:15 PM | Reply

The takeaway here after reading this is that the market is SO good that many Americans have TRIPLED their money.
Thanks Trump! Keep up the good work!

#124 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-12-20 05:47 PM | Reply

This is BAD for the GOP. Health care was the top issue for the 2018 election, this will make it an even bigger issue, and Dems ALWAYS rate much higher on health care than the Gross Old Pedophiles who have worked overtime to rip health insurance from the middle class and working poor.

#125 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2019-12-21 05:09 AM | Reply

that the market is SO good that many Americans have TRIPLED their money.
Thanks Trump! Keep up the good work!

#124 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

So we CAN afford good health care?

If this economy is going so well why haven't we solved any of these big problems. Like healthcare. Infrastructure. Access to affordable higher education.

Where is Humpy's great health care plan?

Dismantling the plan we have without any thought of what will take its place is just plain retarded.

Way to go deplorables.

#126 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-21 11:49 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort