Here’s a thought: write a better bill next time, not one that can challenged and lose in court. Don’t forget to add severability into the bill, meaning that one wrong thing can take down an entire giant law. And, when did health insurance for which a lot of people cannot afford to use it because the deductibles are so high be “health care”?
Sen. Durbin: Americans need to be aware of what’s at stake with Trump’s SCOTUS nomination
We are just weeks away from two important dates: Election Day, on November 3, and November 10, the day the Supreme Court will take up the case that will decide whether the Affordable Care Act will survive.
(lots of whining about Republicans allowing hearings and votes this time when they didn’t do so in 2016)
President Trump has made clear he wants to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. That is the position the Trump administration has taken before the Supreme Court in a case that will be argued on November 10, exactly one week after Election Day.
President Trump has also made clear what he’s looking for in a Supreme Court justice when it comes to the Affordable Care Act.
Just this week, President Trump tweeted, “Obamacare will be replaced with a MUCH better, and FAR cheaper, alternative if it is terminated in the Supreme Court. Would be a big WIN for the USA!”
Let me be clear on two points. First, this effort to rip away health care would not “be a big WIN for the USA.” If Republicans are successful, an estimated 600,000 people in my state of Illinois alone could lose health care coverage, and millions more in my state — even those with employer-sponsored insurance — would lose protections for pre-existing conditions.
It should disturb citizens how embedded the federal government is with their “health care coverage”. The wouldn’t actually lose it, as companies are providing the insurance via Obamacare, mostly what they would lose would be the government subsidies. Most states have requirements for pre-existing conditions coverage, which is the way it is supposed to be, at the state level. That’s where most mandates and requirements resided pre-Ocare. And nothing says that the Congress couldn’t come up with a better plan that would reduce costs while providing better coverage, considering how few providers actually participate in the Ocare exchanges.
At the time of writing, we have nearly 300,000 Illinoisans who have contracted Covid-19 and joined those with asthma, diabetes and heart disease in having a pre-existing condition. As many as 133 million Americans have pre-existing conditions, according to a 2017 Department of Health report. In the middle of a pandemic, who thinks it is a good idea to return to the days when insurance companies could deny coverage, charge women more than men or impose arbitrary caps on benefits?
It’s like they don’t think Congress could come up with a better law. Seriously, it would be as simple as passing a law that says “all insurance providers must cover pre-existing conditions”. Of course, what might be better is having a law that says “people cannot be dropped for having pre-existing conditions.”
Republicans were never able to repeal the Affordable Care Act on the Senate floor, thanks to the late Sen. John McCain, an American hero, joining every Democrat in opposing repeal. So Republicans are trying to accomplish in the courts what they could not accomplish in Congress.
Add super squishy McCain to the list of Republicans who are Not Helpful, like Chief Justice John Roberts
If President Trump and Sen. McConnell go through with their plan to jam through a Supreme Court nominee this year, the Affordable Care Act and its protections for pre-existing conditions will almost certainly be struck down.
Write a better law next time. Perhaps read what’s in it before voting next time. Don’t jam it through using parliamentary tricks. Dick also fails to mention that this is lawsuit by 18 states and 2 individuals, with the backing of the Trump administration. You can read about it here.
Democrats are pretty much at the point of attempting to just scare people into stopping ACB from being confirmed. It’s all they have.
Senator Durbin wrote:
That much better and far less expensive alternative would be to return to the status quo ante, where the federal government was not responsible for people’s health care coverage, where people had to pay for it themselves or go without, and that is exactly what I support.
Yes, that would mean that some people couldn’t afford it, and some would get sicker, or die earlier, from not having health insurance. I, at least, have the balls to admit that, and that I find that far preferable to socialized medicine.