First Federal Appeals Court upholds Healthcare law

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, Sutton is very conservative, and Martin is very liberal, yet they both agree. We know it will get to the Supreme Court. So we'll see.

I just think the 6th Circuit's 0-15 record for the past 15 decisions gives us a hint that this court's opinions are meaningless and wonder why their is still a 6th Circuit? Also wonder about the decisions that were appealed to the SC and were refused?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I just think the 6th Circuit's 0-15 record for the past 15 decisions gives us a hint that this court's opinions are meaningless and wonder why their is still a 6th Circuit? Also wonder about the decisions that were appealed to the SC and were refused?

Why are you fighting so hard against uninsured people being able to purchase insurance? And insurance companies not being able to deny their paid clients coverage?

The PPACA has only given you benefits you have already reaped, it doesn't cost you any more, you have nothing to lose, you don't have to change your insurance, you've already gained benefits, it will help your fellow Americans.

Try to justify for me again why you think this is worth fighting against? Is it because you want to go back to children with cancer being denied lifetime care? You want kids 18-26 to be uninsured again, and take their current insurance away? You want people to go back to using emergency rooms for intermittent health care when they get ill enough, rather than having insurance and using a primary care physician? You want the 18 million who have purchased insurance since the PPACA went into effect to have to give that up?

This law is already in effect. Tell us how you have suffered at it's hands, how it's been a terrible thing for the country, and why we should overturn it and harm our fellow citizens and cost us billions.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why are you fighting so hard against uninsured people being able to purchase insurance? And insurance companies not being able to deny their paid clients coverage?

The PPACA has only given you benefits you have already reaped, it doesn't cost you any more, you have nothing to lose, you don't have to change your insurance, you've already gained benefits, it will help your fellow Americans.

Try to justify for me again why you think this is worth fighting against?

I have no problem with what you mentioned above. I do have a problem with the government forcing a citizen to purchase a private product. In a much bigger picture I'm not fond of any force by the government unless it's used to kill an enemy. Government budding into private business especially something so valuable as healthcare is NEVER a good idea

I'm also all for individuals purchasing health insurance and forcing insurance companies to stand by their policy. I'm against forcing others to subsidize the purchase just as I'm against applicants who 'fib' when applying for coverage and are later denied treatment. We agree!

[Antitrust32]

the law is barely in effect. that is a misrepresentation. a tiny part of the law in in effect now... most of it doesnt start for a couple years.

and its been bad for me already.


nobody is arguing the lifetime benefits, more people insured, no exclusion thing.


the problem is the other 2000 pages of the bill. including forcing people to buy a product, and the fact that the dems didnt even attempt to do tort reform (real insurance reform) because the lawyers are in the dems pockets.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the law is barely in effect. that is a misrepresentation. a tiny part of the law in in effect now... most of it doesnt start for a couple years.

Most of the provisions that affect everybody are already in effect, the vast remainder of what is left is employer and tax provisions.

and its been bad for me already.

Because your boss lied to you and blamed the PPACA for increasing your insurance policy cost at work? See your first comment, above

the problem is the other 2000 pages of the bill. including forcing people to buy a product,

A very conservative judge who clerked for Scalia just agreed there's nothing wrong with it.

and the fact that the dems didnt even attempt to do tort reform (real insurance reform) because the lawyers are in the dems pockets.

Wrong. There indeed is some "tort reform" in there.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because your boss lied to you and blamed the PPACA for increasing your insurance policy cost at work? See your first comment, above


.

this is so false I dont even know where to go with it.

what does my boss have anything to do with it?

she has the same exact crappy plan as I do. infact all 8000 of us do.

because of the PPACA, United health care got rid of two of the three options, leaving us all with a extremely high deductable policy. because of the stupid cadillac tax, apparently Obama does not want anyone to have good health insurance policies.

who are you to accuse my boss of lying when you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about?

[Antitrust32]

an extremely minimal amount of tort reform.

just admit it, the dems failed us with this law. they could have accomplished actual health care reform... instead they created a ton of government agency's and decreased benefits for the working class.

what a wonderful trillion dollar bill.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

because of the stupid cadillac tax, apparently Obama does not want anyone to have good health insurance policies.

who are you to accuse my boss of lying when you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about?

The importance of everyone receiving some care now trumps the quality or cost of care. It's the Obama/socialistic way. Maybe he can add a provision that those who pay anothers subsidy are also responsible for providing transportation and if needed babysitting and pet sitting services while they visit the doctor.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this is so false I dont even know where to go with it.


because of the PPACA, United health care got rid of two of the three options, leaving us all with a extremely high deductable policy.

What part of the PPACA "caused" United Health Care to get rid of options?

It's nice to blame the PPACA for UHC taking a last huge profit grab.

But there is nothing in the PPACA that forced that. Not one thing. What is false is them blaming the PPACA.

I mentioned your boss as I thought you said previously, when you talked about your employee health insurance increasing, that your boss had told you the rising costs were due to the PPACA.

[paulo537]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wrong. There indeed is some "tort reform" in there.

Bullshit.

The only thing you can possibly twist into calling tort reform in the bill is giving $50,000,000.00 of Federal tax money to the states to study and offer alternatives to current tort law at the state level.

That is "Tort Reform?"

No, that is giving states 1/20 of a Billion dollars to study **** we already know.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by paulo537

Bullshit.

The only thing you can possibly twist into calling tort reform in the bill is giving $50,000,000.00 of Federal tax money to the states to study and offer alternatives to current tort law at the state level.

That is "Tort Reform?"

No, that is giving states 1/20 of a Billion dollars to study **** we already know.

Of course you realize that, as insurance laws vary state by state, there is zero way to implement "tort reform" on a federal level. So it has to be on an individual state level.

You also realize that the Republican position supporting "tort reform" as an alternative to the PPACA was to do so state by state.

So the PPACA actually giving the Republicans a good start on state by state tort reform is exactly what the opponents to the PPACA where whining for. They got what they wanted. A start on tort reform state by state, which they maintain will lower health insurance costs