Friday, May 1, 2015

If the SCOTUS Rules Against ObamaCare...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Affordable Care Act has made it possible for approximately 7.5 million individuals who would otherwise have no insurance coverage to feel more secure. 7.5 million qualified for tax payer funded subsidies that either significantly lowered, or eliminated altogether, the cost of health insurance. A good thing.

There are others like myself (my wife is covered under medicare with an appox. $120.00 monthly premium) who do not qualify for a subsidy yet the monthly premium cost for even the low cost higher deductible bronze plan is affordable. But I'm okay with this because of my relative good health and my decision not to reduce my life activities so I can pour in excess of $5.000.00 per anum into the coffers of an insurance company. The forgoing does not include dental and vision.

There must be a more effective avenue to take in pursuing affordable health care coverage for all. The ACA, aka ObamaCare, a start in the right direction but obviously not the ultimate solution. As to the GOP plan, (one likely to take us back to what was) certainly doesn't appear to be a viable response either.

Read the complete article at THE HILL.

Via: Memorandum


  1. Is it no longer "Heritage/ObamaFart" in your opinion?

    In any case, if the SCOTUS rules wrongly we should immediately push for Single Payer. If the SCOTUS rules correctly a bill allowing for citizens to buy into Medicare should be an issue in the presidential campaign.

    As RN said "Medicare as a model for universal healthcare, with some modifications (improvements to insure long term fiscal viability) may not be such a terribly bad idea".

    Count me as being in agreement with RN's (anti-Libertarian) push for more Socialism.

  2. In any case you make a huge stretch in quoting something I did mot say. But I realize that is just you. Disingenuous, but as long as you are comfortable with it that is fie by me. Frankly I couldn't give a sh*t less. But it is likely why you have been banned from several sites.

    I am a capitalist. Call me a benevolent capitalist if you like. Something along the lines of a Thomas Paine style capitalist, one who grasps what "the common welfare" (or good) actually meant.

    Democratic socialism while better than 20th century communism or fascism loses out to benevolent capitalism hands down. Period.

    Now, should you wish to continue discussion here stop misquoting me based onyour interpretation of my actual words. That's the deal Dervish, accept it or be gone.

    1. I am sorry. I cut and pasted your unaltered comment, yet somehow misquoting occurred. I really do not know how. I am so ashamed. My only redeeming quality is that I have "no following. Zero, Zippo, Zilch". Anyway, RN clearly can't take a joke so I will retract the last line of my comment. RN was and has never "pushed" for socialism. He only said it "may not be such a terribly bad idea" which is completely different. Please accept my apologies.

      BTW, I too am a fan of Paine's support for a social welfare state in the form of a state-supported welfare system to ensure the poor and working poor lead comfortable lives. Although please note this is mine and The Thomas Paine National Historical Association's interpertation of Paine's writings. Clearly RN disagrees.

    2. Dervish, I have read Paine, I am fully aware he wrote about social security (at age 50 and many died before that age in the late 18th century) that in today's dollars would be $1200 -$2000 per month.

      Nowhere did I say I say I disagreed with Paine.

      Have a good day Dervish. Post elsewhere, you've worn out your welcome AGAIN.

    3. I did not say you disagreed with him, only the characterization of him or anything he wrote as being socialist. I was trying NOT to misquote you or misinterperet your words by making it clear you and I differ on Paine. You say "benevolent capitalism", I say "socialism. I acceped your deal.

  3. Let me say this... we have a system that, while not perfect, seems to be working pretty good for millions of us, myself included. I was unable to get insurance until the ACA passed with its prohibition against pre-existing conditions.

    If SCOTUS strikes it down, and the GOP controlled Congress and Senate have no fix ready to go, they will lose my consideration for elections forever. Period.

    They've had years to work alongside Dems to fix and improve the ACA and yet all they've done is pass over 50 bills to repeal it. All to energize a crazed, lunatic fringe part of their party.

    How the Dems, who opposed the medicare expansion that passed during the Bush Admin, should have been their guide. The Dems then said it was the law and worked to improve it for all of America, Democrats and Republicans alike.

    When presented with essentially the same opportunity, the GOP failed!

  4. I just say expand Medicare to all.


  5. I'm not a fan of the ACA, Les. But at this time, I think I am even less of a fan of the "repeal it and replace it with nothing at all" alternative.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.