It is complicated and the portrait is accurate.
But hey I will give you a chance since you know this legislation perfectly.
Can you give a brief rundown on funding allocations and exemptions for the DSH program, can you give a brief summary of the methodology and sliding scale plus method of distribution which is aiming to reduce those payments, and of course the timeframe set for the planned reduction?

Is that the NHS which despite its faults and the foolish tory ideological driven meddling still gives better results for less money than the US system?
Or is that the infamous NHS which Stephen Hawking would have died in if he had used it?:rotfl2:

What ideology young man?

I really doubt you have even read the decision or any of the precedents cited in the decision. I belive you get most of your "opinions" from the nutjob drivel of Rush, Sean, and the other neo-Goebbels of the Far Right loonies. It is interesting to note the Far Right media, being unable to defend their allegations or counter the actual law and logic of the decision, now resort to the usual, tired, hackneyed fallbacks of conspiracy theories ("blackmail") or unbased innuendo ("He's gay..."). Why don't you just call him a "Commie" to complete the stew of blather you and your sort spew...

I would suggest, if you really wish to practice law, you learn to read and understand the law, relevant court findings, and maybe throw in a generous helping of logic and discernment; otherwise the future of your legal career may be found on bus bench ads so poular among the ambulance chasers...

Of course, your own bus bench ads are dependent on your actually passing the Bar; but, then, you will have already finished polishing your "I'm a victim of of a Liberal, Left-Wing Law School education" screed in anticipation. Perhaps you can find a closeted gay professor or Dean to blackmail...


<O>

That's why we have a supreme court: To evaluate laws to determine constitutionality. I think the mandate is wrong also, but I also don't see any other way.

I am also not the official authority on what is and ain't constitutional.:D

I sure don't like the present system where people are not paying for insurance, but still get health care and the cost is passed to the rest of us.

To me, the solution is to fix the ACA not dump it. I fear that some members of congress are more concerned with erasing any Obama administration legacy than are interested in actually helping the citizens.

Has anyone, regardless of party, offered up another option?

I read the decision and it was garbage, just like the government's arguments in front of the court.Really, it is not complicated, people like to make things complicated and hope the truth gets lost in all noise. Fact is, Robert's changed his mind with no real reason why.One, he was concerned about his court's legacy or there was blackmail etc. Yes, it is possible, blackmail etc does occur and Robert's homosexuality rumors were around long before.I don't care if he is a homosexual but I do care if he was blackmailed and given the tactics of obama and his loyal band of ignorant followers, it is likely this happened.There simply was no logical legal basis for his decision, he pulled it out of his rear and attempted to justify it, the end.

Does this merit a merge with the crazy conspiracy theories topic?

No it does not, stop.

Give it a rest, bubblehead.

You're embarrassing yourself.

That is no bad blown-up show that is set up by these antisocial, predatory parasites - considering that they are debating about money that is no money but debt bonds, and considering that the US explicit debt level alone exceeds the year's gross domestic product GDP. Not to mention that the implicit debt level is several times as high.

They are debating the king's new dresses and make a mega-big deal of his collection, while everybody having eyes could easily see that the king is naked for sure.

100% of nothing just remains to be nothing.

What these parasites really try to sell to the observer is the impression of being important and indispensable themselves.

Yeah, healthcare. How irrelevant.

no, because I am arguing with people who are just flat out wrong.There is a reason this law is so unpopular and it has nothing to do with "ignorance" of the public.The unpopularity comes in as even the general public can see the negative effects this law is already having, will have and they know, no matter what the corrupt and intellectually dishonest supreme court (in this instance ) says, the law is unconstitutional and the spirit of the law, coercion to purchase a product, is UNAMERICAN. This violates the very spirit our nation was founded upon.The fact the federal government plays enough of a role in our lives that if it shuts down if affects thing, shows just how far away we have drifted from what we are supposed to be.

This law is and never was about healthcare, it is about power and money.Power and money for the government under the guise of healthcare for the people.Really, if they wanted the uninsured insured, they could simply open up the medicare rolls for those who cant afford insurance, pay a low premium each year and boom, everyone is covered. No taxes, no mandates, none of that garbage.Divert some of the money they waste to this, problem solved.

First Obamacare, then a single payer system. In the end the GOP will have to accept this as the better alternative, because Obamacare is doomed to failure.

Really?
Come along young man, I am still waiting for you to enlighten me from my ignorance by your perfect knowledge of this legislation.
What is the matter? was that part of the legislation too hard, too complicated for you to manage even a brief summary?
Ok how about something simpler.
What are the provisions to ensure that something like sickle cell screening by the US PSTF is covered and the corresponding ban on insurance co payments for it?:hmmm:

You really should be more careful about what you claim to know, as you seem to fail every time you are questioned on your claimed knowledge.
When you fail you have a rather funny tendency to lash out by calling other people ignorant instead of taking a step back and thinking about the falseness of the claims you have made.

The explicit debts exceed the yearly GDP. The implicit debts exceed the yearly GDP by several factors. When you want something, you need to afford it. If you spend more than you earn, you get problems. If you live beyond what you can afford, you get problems. If you do not earn what you want to spend, you get problems. No matter how shiny your desires and wishes are.

These are simple truths. Likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it. The US wants much more than it can afford.

Even today everybody wants a party, and nobody wants to clean. Everybody agrees that something must change, but nobody wants to be affected by changes and reductions.

If there is one thing I "believe" in, then it is Karma, the inevitable and unavoidable causal link between cause and effect. People and nations will get from their mishandling of finances and their political decisions exactly what they deserve. And it ain't gonna be nice, that much is sure.


^ All this not meaning that just saying yes or no to Obamacare would solve problems. Its just a symptom of the psychological deformation crippling politicians and ordinary people alike, and socialism being an inbred genetic feature of democracy from all beginning on, always necessarily ruining it from within. So many more revolutionary changes than just Obamacare yes or no would be needed. In all major countries/economies on the globe. Simultaneously, from a historical POV.

I see no reason to be optimistic there.