What comes after the ACA?

[talltexan]

It's weirder than that:

People who oppose abortion often oppose policies--such as making access to birth control easier, or taking a sex positive approach to sex education in public schools--that are proven to reduce the total number of abortions.

[protostache]

It's weirder than that:

People who oppose abortion often oppose policies--such as making access to birth control easier, or taking a sex positive approach to sex education in public schools--that are proven to reduce the total number of abortions.

It's not that weird, and in context it all fits together quite logically. Abortion is murder therefore is a sin. Sex outside of wedlock is a sin. Birth control prevents pregnancy (i.e. aborts conception) and is not a sin in an of itself but leads to sinful behavior because it encourages women to have sex outside of wedlock. Encouraging or allowing sin is, itself, sinful.

The above is what religious people who oppose abortion will tell you. They'll conveniently elide the fact that the anti abortion movement gained momentum after the people who were leading the school segregation movement lost and needed a new target for their vitriol.

[GuitarStv]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

[pecunia]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

Is this for real?  They don't even like their own kids? 

[ysette9]

At the root of it, it is all about controlling women. The main way women can be independent and lead thoughtful, productive, independent lives is by controlling their own bodies and reproduction. It isn’t about the pregnancies or children really at all. If it were, conservatives would be for quality subsidized childcare, universal preschool, universal healthcare, universal prenatal care, and so many other things that help raise healthy, happy, productive kids.

[MrGreen]

The Supreme Court has refused to fast track the Obamacare case currently winding it's way through the court system.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/21/supreme-court-wont-review-obamacare-lawsuit-before-the-election-101356

I'm actually glad of this because despite the slightly decreased enrollment over the last couple years which is highly likely due to the Trump administration's halving of the open enrollment window and shrinking the budget for organizations to help people get enrolled by 90%, the actual healthcare markets themselves are in many places showing resiliency. Premiums have mostly stabilized and there are many markets where insurers are returning. I think a few more years of stabilization and proof that the law is working as intended will make it that much harder to kill.

Now if only we could get some action from the legislature that specifically addresses healthcare costs...

[rantk81]

The Supreme Court has refused to fast track the Obamacare case currently winding it's way through the court system.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/21/supreme-court-wont-review-obamacare-lawsuit-before-the-election-101356

I'm actually glad of this because despite the slightly decreased enrollment over the last couple years which is highly likely due to the Trump administration's halving of the open enrollment window and shrinking the budget for organizations to help people get enrolled by 90%, the actual healthcare markets themselves are in many places showing resiliency. Premiums have mostly stabilized and there are many markets where insurers are returning. I think a few more years of stabilization and proof that the law is working as intended will make it that much harder to kill.

Now if only we could get some action from the legislature that specifically addresses healthcare costs...

I'm actually not glad of it.  It's going to allow the republicans to wait until after the November election, in order to have most (or all) of the ACA killed by the court(s).

[bacchi]

The Supreme Court has refused to fast track the Obamacare case currently winding it's way through the court system.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/21/supreme-court-wont-review-obamacare-lawsuit-before-the-election-101356

I'm actually glad of this because despite the slightly decreased enrollment over the last couple years which is highly likely due to the Trump administration's halving of the open enrollment window and shrinking the budget for organizations to help people get enrolled by 90%, the actual healthcare markets themselves are in many places showing resiliency. Premiums have mostly stabilized and there are many markets where insurers are returning. I think a few more years of stabilization and proof that the law is working as intended will make it that much harder to kill.

Now if only we could get some action from the legislature that specifically addresses healthcare costs...

I'm actually not glad of it.  It's going to allow the republicans to wait until after the November election, in order to have most (or all) of the ACA killed by the court(s).

Yep. The conservative court is waiting until after the election for a reason.

[MrGreen]

The Supreme Court has refused to fast track the Obamacare case currently winding it's way through the court system.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/21/supreme-court-wont-review-obamacare-lawsuit-before-the-election-101356

I'm actually glad of this because despite the slightly decreased enrollment over the last couple years which is highly likely due to the Trump administration's halving of the open enrollment window and shrinking the budget for organizations to help people get enrolled by 90%, the actual healthcare markets themselves are in many places showing resiliency. Premiums have mostly stabilized and there are many markets where insurers are returning. I think a few more years of stabilization and proof that the law is working as intended will make it that much harder to kill.

Now if only we could get some action from the legislature that specifically addresses healthcare costs...

I'm actually not glad of it.  It's going to allow the republicans to wait until after the November election, in order to have most (or all) of the ACA killed by the court(s).

Yep. The conservative court is waiting until after the election for a reason.

Perhaps I'm not jaded enough yet but I don't think the Supreme Court is going to strip 10 million+ people of health insurance without any alternative. I suppose they could be bigger assholes than I imagine though.

[GuitarStv]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

Is this for real?  They don't even like their own kids?

I'm sure they like their own kids just fine.  Kids aren't a punishment when you've got a stable marriage, two working parents, and a large support network.

[Exflyboy]

No fast tracking of stabbing to death the ACA then.

Probably means the ACA is safe for 2021.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/21/supreme-court-wont-review-obamacare-lawsuit-before-the-election-101356

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

Is this for real?  They don't even like their own kids?

I'm sure they like their own kids just fine.  Kids aren't a punishment when you've got a stable marriage, two working parents, and a large support network.

I don't know of any single person in real life who really thinks that kids are a punishment, and I think this is a severe misrepresentation and generally crappy view of others with no backing evidence. Consequence of an action, yes, but not a punishment.

[Rural]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

Is this for real?  They don't even like their own kids?

I'm sure they like their own kids just fine.  Kids aren't a punishment when you've got a stable marriage, two working parents, and a large support network.

I don't know of any single person in real life who really thinks that kids are a punishment, and I think this is a severe misrepresentation and generally crappy view of others with no backing evidence. Consequence of an action, yes, but not a punishment.

I know lots, have heard quite a few say so from the pulpit, in fact.

[MrGreen]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

Is this for real?  They don't even like their own kids?

I'm sure they like their own kids just fine.  Kids aren't a punishment when you've got a stable marriage, two working parents, and a large support network.

I don't know of any single person in real life who really thinks that kids are a punishment, and I think this is a severe misrepresentation and generally crappy view of others with no backing evidence. Consequence of an action, yes, but not a punishment.

I know lots, have heard quite a few say so from the pulpit, in fact.

The irony in that viewpoint is quite hilarious, given that we wouldn't exist without children.

[Paul der Krake]

The irony in that viewpoint is quite hilarious, given that we wouldn't exist without children.

Speak for yourself. Had my assigned birth mother not been around, I would have leveraged the inevitably robust free market to get what I wanted. When society frees itself from the shackles of bloated divine interference, the gestation marketplace flourishes. It's basic Keynesian economics.

I feel cheated for having been denied the opportunity of being born a snow leopard.

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

Is this for real?  They don't even like their own kids?

I'm sure they like their own kids just fine.  Kids aren't a punishment when you've got a stable marriage, two working parents, and a large support network.

I don't know of any single person in real life who really thinks that kids are a punishment, and I think this is a severe misrepresentation and generally crappy view of others with no backing evidence. Consequence of an action, yes, but not a punishment.

I know lots, have heard quite a few say so from the pulpit, in fact.

Fair enough. I guess we just hang out in different circles. I've never ever remotely heard any pro-life argument from that perspective, especially from the pulpit. Literally every argument I've heard publically or privately is always from the perspective of the innocence of the new life not that it's a punishment.

[talltexan]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

Is this for real?  They don't even like their own kids?

I'm sure they like their own kids just fine.  Kids aren't a punishment when you've got a stable marriage, two working parents, and a large support network.

Yeah, this is one of those places where people attach different narratives to the same facts. My Evangelical co-worker cannot understand why someone wouldn't want a child (he has five; his wife stays at home). My two children--who really do an excellent job if you look at the data--make me think that no one should have to deal with a child if they don't want a child.

I have no idea what I'd do if my wife--who works--were suddenly to become pregnant again (had the surgery, but I've heard of rare cases where they grow back).

[Wolfpack Mustachian]

A lot of the opposition from abortion folks seems to come from the view that children are punishment for having sex.  They see abortion as a way of escaping punishment (same with birth control).  That's why so many who fight against abortion are also opposed to programs that help single mothers, poor children, etc.  It mitigates punishment for the sin of sex.

Is this for real?  They don't even like their own kids?

I'm sure they like their own kids just fine.  Kids aren't a punishment when you've got a stable marriage, two working parents, and a large support network.

Yeah, this is one of those places where people attach different narratives to the same facts. My Evangelical co-worker cannot understand why someone wouldn't want a child (he has five; his wife stays at home). My two children--who really do an excellent job if you look at the data--make me think that no one should have to deal with a child if they don't want a child.

I have no idea what I'd do if my wife--who works--were suddenly to become pregnant again (had the surgery, but I've heard of rare cases where they grow back).

This is what I was getting at, and it's true even when it's in in light of a more negative side - i.e. being oblivious side of things (to talltexan's perspective on kids). I'm not very familiar with the Catholic perspective, but the standard Evangelical perspective, especially more fundamentalist, is that children are blessings - probably not just correlated but causal related to them having more kids overall. I have no idea where this whole "kids are punishment" thing is coming from, because the general perspective of people most likely to be against abortion for a religious standpoint like that is that kids are a good thing.

[GuitarStv]

Often times reality doesn't match up with what religious leaders tell people.  This might be where your confusion is coming from.


The 'kids are punishment' thing is from logically trying to explain someone who is against allowing abortion, but also fights against anything the government does to make life better for children.  Stuff like free breakfast at school, food stamps for families, paid maternity leave, subsidized day care, etc.

If you object to abortion because you care about life/children this action doesn't make any sense at all.  If you view abortion as 'escaping punishment that you deserve for having sex' and having children as 'being punished for having sex' then these actions make perfect sense.

[John Galt incarnate!]

The Supreme Court has refused to fast track the Obamacare case currently winding it's way through the court system.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/21/supreme-court-wont-review-obamacare-lawsuit-before-the-election-101356

I'm actually glad of this because despite the slightly decreased enrollment over the last couple years which is highly likely due to the Trump administration's halving of the open enrollment window and shrinking the budget for organizations to help people get enrolled by 90%, the actual healthcare markets themselves are in many places showing resiliency. Premiums have mostly stabilized and there are many markets where insurers are returning. I think a few more years of stabilization and proof that the law is working as intended will make it that much harder to kill.

Now if only we could get some action from the legislature that specifically addresses healthcare costs...

I'm actually not glad of it.  It's going to allow the republicans to wait until after the November election, in order to have most (or all) of the ACA killed by the court(s).

Yep. The conservative court is waiting until after the election for a reason.

Perhaps I'm not jaded enough yet but I don't think the Supreme Court is going to strip 10 million+ people of health insurance without any alternative. I suppose they could be bigger assholes than I imagine though.

When the Supreme Court hears a challenge to one of its precedents, "reliance interest" is among the criteria the Court weighs as it deliberates whether or not to overturn  the precedent.

Millions of  healthy people and millions of sick patients rely on the ACA which militates powerfully against the  high Court overturning it.

[MrGreen]

The irony in that viewpoint is quite hilarious, given that we wouldn't exist without children.

Speak for yourself. Had my assigned birth mother not been around, I would have leveraged the inevitably robust free market to get what I wanted. When society frees itself from the shackles of bloated divine interference, the gestation marketplace flourishes. It's basic Keynesian economics.

I feel cheated for having been denied the opportunity of being born a snow leopard.

Personally, I wanted to be a Black Footed Cat, the most efficient killing machine on the planet, AND the cutest because they're so small!

[MrGreen]

The Supreme Court has refused to fast track the Obamacare case currently winding it's way through the court system.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/01/21/supreme-court-wont-review-obamacare-lawsuit-before-the-election-101356

I'm actually glad of this because despite the slightly decreased enrollment over the last couple years which is highly likely due to the Trump administration's halving of the open enrollment window and shrinking the budget for organizations to help people get enrolled by 90%, the actual healthcare markets themselves are in many places showing resiliency. Premiums have mostly stabilized and there are many markets where insurers are returning. I think a few more years of stabilization and proof that the law is working as intended will make it that much harder to kill.

Now if only we could get some action from the legislature that specifically addresses healthcare costs...

I'm actually not glad of it.  It's going to allow the republicans to wait until after the November election, in order to have most (or all) of the ACA killed by the court(s).

Yep. The conservative court is waiting until after the election for a reason.

Perhaps I'm not jaded enough yet but I don't think the Supreme Court is going to strip 10 million+ people of health insurance without any alternative. I suppose they could be bigger assholes than I imagine though.

When the Supreme Court hears a challenge to one of its precedents, "reliance interest" is among the criteria the Court weighs as it deliberates whether or not to overturn  the precedent.

Millions of  healthy people and millions of sick patients rely on the ACA which militates powerfully against the  high Court overturning it.

One could even go so far as to say that overturning the law would actually make things worse for conservatives. Imagine 10 million people immediately losing health insurance with no alternative in place. Suddenly a new law is the main thing in the populace's and media's sights. Now they're really fucked because they could't manage to pass a new law when their backs weren't up against a wall, let alone in that situation. The ACA serves a small enough percentage of the population that they'd be better off just leaving it alone.

[Paul der Krake]

One could even go so far as to say that overturning the law would actually make things worse for conservatives. Imagine 10 million people immediately losing health insurance with no alternative in place. Suddenly a new law is the main thing in the populace's and media's sights. Now they're really fucked because they could't manage to pass a new law when their backs weren't up against a wall, let alone in that situation. The ACA serves a small enough percentage of the population that they'd be better off just leaving it alone.

My perception is that things would just revert to pre-ACA shittiness, and it wouldn't make a dent in support for Trump. Frankly, I'm not sure anything can. It may even help them finally fulfilling a 8 year old campaign promise.

[Exflyboy]

Yeah the Trump base is so infused with the Kool-aid nothing will change their support. Trump really could probably murder somebody on 5th Avenue and they'd still love him.. Especially if he murdered an immigrant!

However, the last time "repeal and NOT replace" came up the reaction was pretty stiff and vocal so I'm a little surprised they are still trying to kill it as presumably the same reaction will happen.

The other thing I have some hope for is legislation at the State level. in 2018 in Oregon for example we had legislation passed that prevented balance billing by in-network ER facilities that contract to out of network providers. Its not completely air-tight but its a heck of a good start. I know a number of (blue) states have gone/going this way.

Sadly many of the States simply don't have the funds to make state funded single payer systems a reality though.

[pecunia]

Yeah the Trump base is so infused with the Kool-aid nothing will change their support. Trump really could probably murder somebody on 5th Avenue and they'd still love him.. Especially if he murdered an immigrant!

- SNIP -

Sadly many of the States simply don't have the funds to make state funded single payer systems a reality though.

It wasn't fifth avenue, it overseas - that Iranian guy nobody had ever heard of.

I think if they eliminated the ACA at this point folks would be very very angry with the GOP boys.  It took the vote of a dying man, John McCain, to save it last time.   I figure it was one of his last acts of goodness.  I also figure he was trying to help the odds of where he would end up.

[Exflyboy]

Yeah the Trump base is so infused with the Kool-aid nothing will change their support. Trump really could probably murder somebody on 5th Avenue and they'd still love him.. Especially if he murdered an immigrant!

- SNIP -

Sadly many of the States simply don't have the funds to make state funded single payer systems a reality though.

It wasn't fifth avenue, it overseas - that Iranian guy nobody had ever heard of.

I think if they eliminated the ACA at this point folks would be very very angry with the GOP boys.  It took the vote of a dying man, John McCain, to save it last time.   I figure it was one of his last acts of goodness.  I also figure he was trying to help the odds of where he would end up.

John McCain was probably the last Republican to have the balls* to say no to Trump!

* Appologies to female Republican Senators...

[DaMa]

I have a lot of respect for McCain.  I do believe he voted no, because he knew he wasn't going to be running for re-election.  If not for that, he may we'll have voted yes.

[GuitarStv]

Yeah the Trump base is so infused with the Kool-aid nothing will change their support. Trump really could probably murder somebody on 5th Avenue and they'd still love him.. Especially if he murdered an immigrant!

- SNIP -

Sadly many of the States simply don't have the funds to make state funded single payer systems a reality though.

It wasn't fifth avenue, it overseas - that Iranian guy nobody had ever heard of.

I think if they eliminated the ACA at this point folks would be very very angry with the GOP boys.  It took the vote of a dying man, John McCain, to save it last time.   I figure it was one of his last acts of goodness.  I also figure he was trying to help the odds of where he would end up.

John McCain was probably the last Republican to have the balls* to say no to Trump!

* Appologies to female Republican Senators...

Yeah.  All 5 of them.  :P

[pecunia]

@GuitarStv :  You Canadians certainly know your US politics better than most of us know Canadian politics.  For example:  I do not have a clue as to what is happening in Kamloops.  (I couldn't even place it on a map.)

[Bateaux]

Yeah the Trump base is so infused with the Kool-aid nothing will change their support. Trump really could probably murder somebody on 5th Avenue and they'd still love him.. Especially if he murdered an immigrant!

- SNIP -

Sadly many of the States simply don't have the funds to make state funded single payer systems a reality though.

Loved that man.


It wasn't fifth avenue, it overseas - that Iranian guy nobody had ever heard of.

I think if they eliminated the ACA at this point folks would be very very angry with the GOP boys.  It took the vote of a dying man, John McCain, to save it last time.   I figure it was one of his last acts of goodness.  I also figure he was trying to help the odds of where he would end up.

John McCain was probably the last Republican to have the balls* to say no to Trump!

* Appologies to female Republican Senators...

[American GenX]

The Supreme Court has refused to fast track the Obamacare case currently winding it's way through the court system.

I haven't seen anymore updates posted about this, but that's not been decided yet.

"The U.S. Supreme Court signaled it will use its Feb. 21 private conference to discuss whether to consider the fate of the Affordable Care Act on a fast-track schedule that would mean a decision by the end of June. "

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/481635-supreme-court-to-consider-taking-obamacare-case-at-feb-21-conference

"Democrats are urging the justices to hold arguments during the last week of April -- the court’s last scheduled week to hear cases -- or during a highly unusual special sitting in May."

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/document/X581H6QS000000

It takes 5 justices to vote for expediting the case this term.
It takes 4 justices to vote to take the case for review next term.
Otherwise, it continues back down to the district court regarding the severability of the mandate from the other components of the ACA, where it was previously ruled the entire law falls along with the mandate.

[MrGreen]

The Supreme Court has refused to fast track the Obamacare case currently winding it's way through the court system.

I haven't seen anymore updates posted about this, but that's not been decided yet.

"The U.S. Supreme Court signaled it will use its Feb. 21 private conference to discuss whether to consider the fate of the Affordable Care Act on a fast-track schedule that would mean a decision by the end of June. "

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/481635-supreme-court-to-consider-taking-obamacare-case-at-feb-21-conference

"Democrats are urging the justices to hold arguments during the last week of April -- the court’s last scheduled week to hear cases -- or during a highly unusual special sitting in May."

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/document/X581H6QS000000

It takes 5 justices to vote for expediting the case this term.
It takes 4 justices to vote to take the case for review next term.
Otherwise, it continues back down to the district court regarding the severability of the mandate from the other components of the ACA, where it was previously ruled the entire law falls along with the mandate.

I saw this last round of articles as well. It left me very confused based on what I read in the Politico article I posted. I guess it's all still up in the air.

[DaMa]

If they were to hear the case this term, would there be a decision before the election?

[Paul der Krake]

If they were to hear the case this term, would there be a decision before the election?

In all likelihood, yes:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx

Whether the Justices actually are actually willing to become part of the news cycle in what's shaping up to be one of the ugliest election years ever is another story, and anyone's guess.

[former player]

If they were to hear the case this term, would there be a decision before the election?

In all likelihood, yes:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx

Whether the Justices actually are actually willing to become part of the news cycle in what's shaping up to be one of the ugliest election years ever is another story, and anyone's guess.

Given that they have to make a choice one way or the other I don't see how the Justices avoid that.  Even if they decide not to take the case then they are effectively agreeing with the lower court that the health insurance mandate is unlawful and that they don't mind one way or the other if the whole of the Affordable Care Act is ruled unlawful.

[Paul der Krake]

If they were to hear the case this term, would there be a decision before the election?

In all likelihood, yes:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx

Whether the Justices actually are actually willing to become part of the news cycle in what's shaping up to be one of the ugliest election years ever is another story, and anyone's guess.

Given that they have to make a choice one way or the other I don't see how the Justices avoid that.  Even if they decide not to take the case then they are effectively agreeing with the lower court that the health insurance mandate is unlawful and that they don't mind one way or the other if the whole of the Affordable Care Act is ruled unlawful.

Sure, but the Supreme Court *not* taking up a case looks very different to the average person, because that's the default. You won't get people demonstrating outside the court on 1st Street. It won't be front page news of every outlet in the country. It will be mentioned in passing during political debates, as opposed to taking 30 minutes of air time.

[former player]

If they were to hear the case this term, would there be a decision before the election?

In all likelihood, yes:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx

Whether the Justices actually are actually willing to become part of the news cycle in what's shaping up to be one of the ugliest election years ever is another story, and anyone's guess.

Given that they have to make a choice one way or the other I don't see how the Justices avoid that.  Even if they decide not to take the case then they are effectively agreeing with the lower court that the health insurance mandate is unlawful and that they don't mind one way or the other if the whole of the Affordable Care Act is ruled unlawful.

Sure, but the Supreme Court *not* taking up a case looks very different to the average person, because that's the default. You won't get people demonstrating outside the court on 1st Street. It won't be front page news of every outlet in the country. It will be mentioned in passing during political debates, as opposed to taking 30 minutes of air time.

The average person will notice pretty quickly if a Supreme Court decision means that they no longer have protection for pre-existing conditions, surely?

[Paul der Krake]

Sure, but the Supreme Court *not* taking up a case looks very different to the average person, because that's the default. You won't get people demonstrating outside the court on 1st Street. It won't be front page news of every outlet in the country. It will be mentioned in passing during political debates, as opposed to taking 30 minutes of air time.

The average person will notice pretty quickly if a Supreme Court decision means that they no longer have protection for pre-existing conditions, surely?

Unlikely. Blue states' AGs and insurance companies have challenges in the oven for virtually any decision can could be reached in the lower court. That means more delays.

Besides, the average person gets coverage through their employer, and employers aren't going to drop these protections overnight. There are contracts in place. They need to assess what their legal options are. States will rush to pass state-level laws mandating guaranteed issue. We're talking months and months before the effects are actually felt, well past the election.

[American GenX]

If they were to hear the case this term, would there be a decision before the election?

Yes, it could be by June as quoted from one of the articles I linked to.  Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that it's going to happen this term, but there's still hope.  They might take it for next term, which is still unusual for a case still proceeding through lower courts, but if they don't take it, it proceeds back to the district judge to give a better explanation why the mandate is inseverable from the rest of the ACA as he previously ruled.  In the meantime, nothing changes, and after moving through the lower courts again, it's likely to end up, eventually, back at the the Supreme Court for a final ruling.

Most people don't know what's going on with it.  I haven't seen it in the news - I had to actually search for the latest info that I linked to yesterday.  They don't even talk about it in the debates, although David Muir did say, "The Affordable Care Act is at the court," to lead off a question, but that was as close as it got to referencing this lawsuit.

[pecunia]

Must be a lot of money to be made for the insurance companies if they can avoid selling insurance to folks with pre-existing conditions.  These companies will be able to just effectively skim the cream from the rest of the available population.

[DavidAnnArbor]

Must be a lot of money to be made for the insurance companies if they can avoid selling insurance to folks with pre-existing conditions.  These companies will be able to just effectively skim the cream from the rest of the available population.

This is the way it used to be on the individual health insurance market before the Affordable Care Act.

Not only did they not sell insurance to those with pre-existing conditions, but they would often refuse to pay out claims to those who were insured by claiming that the insured individuals didn't tell the truth on the insurance applications.

Watch the Michael Moore film, Sicko, and you'll see what shenanigans the insurance companies got away with.

[Exflyboy]

I just did the mental arithmetic to see if we could qualify for Medicaid if we had to, I think we can.

DW won't like it in the basis of "We would be stealing from the poor", and I'm not sure what it would mean in actually getting actual healthcare if we needed it.

But it is an option should the SHTF.

[zolotiyeruki]

To be fair, if you have a preexisting condition and are trying to get a new insurance policy in order to pay for treatment, you're not looking for insurance. You're looking for charity. Insurance is about managing the risk of a low-probability, high-impact event across a larger number of people. If you've a preexisting condition, its no longer a question of risk--to the insurance company, you are certain to cost them far more than you'll ever pay in premiums, so naturally it makes no sense for them to pick you up as a customer.

That's why the individual mandate is logically inseverable from guaranteed issue.  Without the mandate, people could just sign up for "insurance" when they get sick, and either insurance companies go belly up (and nobody can get insurance) or premiums skyrocket (and nobody can afford it).

[Omy]

In the olden days, if you didn't have a group policy (imagine being self employed) your insurer could increase your rates whenever they wanted (literally every time you made a claim)...and drop you as soon as you developed an expensive condition. And limit your lifetime payouts. And exclude any part of your body that was diseased. Ask me how I know.

This was also not "insurance"...more like highway robbery. I agree that the mandate is important, but the GOP removed the mandate with the intention of breaking the ACA. They created the ridiculous situation where you can game the system until you're sick. Put the mandate back in and the system is restored.

[Exflyboy]

Precisely why using insurance to provide healthcare is a bad idea. You know as a society you have to provide care for your people so stop trying to make money off the process.

But that makes me sound like a Socialist and therefore I am going to Hell..

[American GenX]

That's why the individual mandate is logically inseverable from guaranteed issue.  Without the mandate, people could just sign up for "insurance" when they get sick,

No, it doesn't work that way.   That's why you have to sign up for a policy during open enrollment unless you have a special qualifying event, like losing your insurance through work, to prevent people from gaming the system.

The markets have proved they continue to work with the $0 penalty to enforce the mandate, so they would continue to work without the mandate altogether, as well.

[pecunia]

Precisely why using insurance to provide healthcare is a bad idea. You know as a society you have to provide care for your people so stop trying to make money off the process.

But that makes me sound like a Socialist and therefore I am going to Hell..

You are excused as you are an Englishman and grew up used to better health care that cost less money that covered everybody.  However, it won't work here because,......because,.......because,......well just because OK!

[AdrianC]

I just did the mental arithmetic to see if we could qualify for Medicaid if we had to, I think we can.

DW won't like it in the basis of "We would be stealing from the poor", and I'm not sure what it would mean in actually getting actual healthcare if we needed it.

But it is an option should the SHTF.

Here in Trumpsville they're keen to include work requirements for Medicaid. Our penultimate fallback will likely be one of us gets a job that provides health insurance. Something within the school district would nice. Junior has 6 more years of grade school.

Ultimate fallback is to up stakes and move back to Blighty. It won't come to that. I think the winds of change are a-blowing. Well, I hope they are. The 2018 mid-terms seemed to show that many voters are focused on healthcare.

[Fireball]

Precisely why using insurance to provide healthcare is a bad idea. You know as a society you have to provide care for your people so stop trying to make money off the process.

But that makes me sound like a Socialist and therefore I am going to Hell..

You are excused as you are an Englishman and grew up used to better health care that cost less money that covered everybody.  However, it won't work here because,......because,.......because,......well just because OK!

I know someone who lives in the UK who's thinking of moving to Canada next year. I asked them why even consider Canada and not the US if coming to North America. They said "Uh, US healthcare is garbage and you're freakin' gun crazy."

Fair enough.

[SugarMountain]

That's why the individual mandate is logically inseverable from guaranteed issue.  Without the mandate, people could just sign up for "insurance" when they get sick,

No, it doesn't work that way.   That's why you have to sign up for a policy during open enrollment unless you have a special qualifying event, like losing your insurance through work, to prevent people from gaming the system.

The markets have proved they continue to work with the $0 penalty to enforce the mandate, so they would continue to work without the mandate altogether, as well.

Except now you can get cheap dogshit "short term" policies and then if you do end up with something serious have that carry you until you get to an ACA enrollment period and get better coverage.