General Discussion

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)

49. BINGO!!! We have a winner!

Tue Mar 27, 2012, 04:23 PM

Mar 2012

I thought that they would stand to gain because insurance companies would be receiving more customers and therefore more money. But now I am convinced that without the mandate, insurance companies will remain free to charge whatever they want. The SCOTUS would have to strike down the entire law, then, because the pre-existing conditions clause and other pro-consumer provisions means that the insurance companies have to pay more. With the law struck down, insurance companies would no longer be obligated to spend 85 cents of every $1.00 on health care services. They will also be able to rescind coverage for anyone that they seem is "too expensive" to cover. And the pre-existing conditions provisions would be undone. Everything that is good about the law would be undone.

Sadly, the Republicans have won. They can run on this issue and really do some damage.

Also, it demonstrates just how important elections are. The voters that were so angry in 2010 are now seeing what happens when they allow their anger to guide their decisions, in this case, either voting Republican or not voting at all.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Toobin: 'This Law Looks Like It's Going To Be Struck Down' [View all] NRaleighLiberal Mar 2012 OP

Rework the law by replacing mandates with a tax DJ13 Mar 2012 #1

If it is a tax paid to the gov't, WE HAVE SINGLE PAYER, don't we? aquart Mar 2012 #22

I wish DJ13 Mar 2012 #25

If this does happen, is there any spill over effect for other laws? chelsea0011 Mar 2012 #2

That depends on how the justices rule, whether it's narrow or overly broad in scope. Selatius Mar 2012 #3

The MA law is governed by the state Constitution. former9thward Mar 2012 #5

If it is struck down, the only alternative is Medicare for all mainer Mar 2012 #4

Not the tenth level super duper chess player nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #6

Ugh, the multilevel chess joke again? stevenleser Mar 2012 #8

It's an often-used description because it's an often-used kind of rhetoric. Marr Mar 2012 #15

It's a joke that has been told at least 1000 times on DU. Like any joke, its pretty old after that stevenleser Mar 2012 #17

That is what the person meant nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #19

And you have to tell the same joke to convey your disagreement? nt stevenleser Mar 2012 #21

Whatever dude nadinbrzezinski Mar 2012 #23

Perhaps. Maybe other people appreciate the same joke the 1011th time, especially those stevenleser Mar 2012 #24

Hey sitcoms last for years with variations on the same joke.... WCGreen Mar 2012 #64

Do you need four posts to disagree with nadin's use of a common figure? EFerrari Mar 2012 #29

I cant respond to responses to me? Sorry, that doesnt work and isnt compelling. stevenleser Mar 2012 #31

Holy double standard, batman. nt EFerrari Mar 2012 #45

I agree, you dont complain about a joke being told 1000 times, but I cant respond to people stevenleser Mar 2012 #46

False in both parts. n/t EFerrari Mar 2012 #48

+1 Exactly. nt zappaman Mar 2012 #37

Ah, the "Obama the 3D Chess Player" posts here back in early 09! I remember them fondly... CTyankee Mar 2012 #12

Not a chance. See my thoughts here... stevenleser Mar 2012 #7

Dream On.... BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #10

YOU dream on. SpencerShay Mar 2012 #13

Look, I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt that I am. BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #44

All I'm saying is that Obama has one last chess move after this. mainer Mar 2012 #33

And the answer to Obama's question will be..... BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #34

And the lack of health coverage can then all be laid at the GOP's feet. mainer Mar 2012 #36

Like that's going to matter BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #38

Well, for the sake of the country, I do hope you're wrong. mainer Mar 2012 #40

I hope I'm wrong, also but...... BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #43

And he's going to lose to Romney? sadbear Mar 2012 #41

Thats the other variable here that might mitigate the damage. How does Romney press this stevenleser Mar 2012 #47

Impossible jzodda Mar 2012 #14

A vote for ANY Republican is a vote against ALL women. aquart Mar 2012 #27

And just how would you propose it would get by the Republican Senate. Bandit Mar 2012 #16

No, another option is to let millions of Americans go without coverage... SidDithers Mar 2012 #42

No, it's that less people will have health insurance budkin Mar 2012 #56

Who will pass that? RBInMaine Mar 2012 #61

TPM: ProSense Mar 2012 #9

Fingers crossed - thanks for posting that. This is going to take months to play out, I think. NRaleighLiberal Mar 2012 #18

I wish I shared your optimism... BlueDemKev Mar 2012 #35

Duh, has he bothered to look at this Supreme Court's recent decisions? sinkingfeeling Mar 2012 #11

toobin knows shit.....nobody will know anything until june. spanone Mar 2012 #20

CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin a kennedy Mar 2012 #26

Actually he is very sharp underpants Mar 2012 #52

I wasn't there, but I do not believe it. kenny blankenship Mar 2012 #28

Helping 1 group of corporations doesnt trump what they could do with the Presidency stevenleser Mar 2012 #32

absolutely agree librechik Mar 2012 #39

I tend to agree. girl gone mad Mar 2012 #50

I agree with you. Why would this Corporate Court strike down a bill that so benefits sabrina 1 Mar 2012 #62

Was there ever any doubt? Hawkowl Mar 2012 #30

BINGO!!! We have a winner! Liberal_Stalwart71 Mar 2012 #49

Perhaps but that isn't sustainable. They won't have enough subscribers to maintain or expand profits TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #55

Well, from your words to God's ear. I hope that I am indeed wrong and you are right! Liberal_Stalwart71 Mar 2012 #58

Mine is not a pleasent picture, I figure it will be increasingly awful with no shortage TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #63

You are right to a point Hawkowl Mar 2012 #59

That is my expectation. They will destroy themselves. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #60

Striking down the mandate doesn't kill the whole law The Second Stone Mar 2012 #51

Practically speaking, it does. mainer Mar 2012 #53

Actually it very well could MadHound Mar 2012 #54

No denial of pre-existing conditions depends on that revenue budkin Mar 2012 #57

Bullshit _ed_ Mar 2012 #65