Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[LinekersLegs]

 

[RAFUH]

So here’s what I couldn’t wrap my head around in the insanity of the exchange on his health care plan. I may be wrong, but if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare to be unconstitutional, wouldn’t anyone on those plans immediately lose their insurance, as the court would have found those plans to be illegal? So apparently Trump then expects to roll out his new plan based on the ruling. Does he really think Americans are naive enough to believe he’ll propose a plan, pass it through Congress that day and have it take effect so quickly that there will be no lapse in coverage? I know he tends to play to the lowest common denominator, but surely he can’t think ANYONE is that stupid. The best case scenario would take years, if it ever gets through at all.

I don't think GOP really wants to end the ACA. It is something for them to rail against to wind up their voters and they don't have a replacement. There base would be happy, briefly.

Honestly, I think ending ACA would be the fastest way to bring about something like Medicare for all, unless insurers where smart and didn't immediately kick everyone off, raise cost and generally revert to pre-ACA.

 

[Martin Alvito]

So here’s what I couldn’t wrap my head around in the insanity of the exchange on his health care plan. I may be wrong, but if the Supreme Court rules Obamacare to be unconstitutional, wouldn’t anyone on those plans immediately lose their insurance, as the court would have found those plans to be illegal? So apparently Trump then expects to roll out his new plan based on the ruling. Does he really think Americans are naive enough to believe he’ll propose a plan, pass it through Congress that day and have it take effect so quickly that there will be no lapse in coverage? I know he tends to play to the lowest common denominator, but surely he can’t think ANYONE is that stupid. The best case scenario would take years, if it ever gets through at all.

There are a lot of Americans who are that uneducated about how things work out there. Probably not enough for him, but a lot.

I'd like to know what happens to things that happened in the past if it gets ruled unconstitutional.

If the law goes down, then presumably all of the insurance purchased on the exchanges was purchased illegally. Does that mean that insurance companies have to return the premiums? Can they reverse claim payments?

I'm not aware of a clean answer in the law to those questions. My intuition says that someone will litigate this, and that the answers vary by state, with the result being a right mess of litigation.

 

[RAFUH]

There are a lot of Americans who are that uneducated about how things work out there. Probably not enough for him, but a lot.

I'd like to know what happens to things that happened in the past if it gets ruled unconstitutional.

If the law goes down, then presumably all of the insurance purchased on the exchanges was purchased illegally. Does that mean that insurance companies have to return the premiums? Can they reverse claim payments?

I'm not aware of a clean answer in the law to those questions. My intuition says that someone will litigate this, and that the answers vary by state, with the result being a right mess of litigation.

The insurance policies themselves would not be considered unconstitutional. Believe the GOP argument for unconstitutionality is the government regulation of the industry... forcing employers to provide insurance as well setting laws/rules about the what/how/who insurance companies cover. (ie butting into business practices)

For example - prior to ACA insurers either didn't cover pre-existing conditions or charged folks exorbitant amounts to be covered. ACA requires insurers to cover all and not charge extra.

So even if SCOTUS rules with the GOP, employers and insurers could continue along as if ACA was still in place, but the assumption is they won't thus folks will either outright lose coverage (be dropped from their insurer) or be priced out.

 

[SteveSC]

I just can't believe we use computers for these types of things unless we're going nuclear codes level of security. Election fraud with actual votes is hard, hacking a computer not so much.

Computers can be made more secure. The problem is there is so much distrust that they would never consider hiring actual legit security companies to secure them.

The contracts always go to their friends.

I was part of a group on this very subject.

The right would hire their friends and their pockets would get lined. The left bemoans that they can be hacked easily and how can they trust them etc...

There are plenty of ways to secure computers and encrypt the data so that they cannot be hacked. There are plenty of ways to send saved data too. Several ways to secure the network the devices are on.

The problem is never the device its the people in charge of them and the level of understanding in those who hired them.

Would you believe the companies who owns the machines the majority of them are not IT companies and security is definitely not on their minds. Cheap and cheerful to make the most profit is.

 

[Moomin]

I've noticed this thread was started by @kithnou who is a Kiwi who loves Trump.

Has he been quiet recently because he realised the error of his ways or would he have wanted Trump to be the ruler of New Zealand during this pandemic???

 

[Martin Alvito]

The insurance policies themselves would not be considered unconstitutional. Believe the GOP argument for unconstitutionality is the government regulation of the industry... forcing employers to provide insurance as well setting laws/rules about the what/how/who insurance companies cover. (ie butting into business practices)

For example - prior to ACA insurers either didn't cover pre-existing conditions or charged folks exorbitant amounts to be covered. ACA requires insurers to cover all and not charge extra.

So even if SCOTUS rules with the GOP, employers and insurers could continue along as if ACA was still in place, but the assumption is they won't thus folks will either outright lose coverage (be dropped from their insurer) or be priced out.

I get that the policies themselves won't be declared unconstitutional. It's less clear to me how a court might rule on whether the provisions of those policies are affected by a declaration that those provisions were unconstitutionally mandated by the government.

I would think that the insurers would be on the hook for existing policies through their renewal date, that insurers would be compelled to honor those policies through that date so long as premiums were paid, and that either the guaranteed renewability provisions would not apply or the insurers could essentially create that situation by sending premiums into the stratosphere.

However, I'm a long way from 100% on that and it would take an attorney with the appropriate specialization to make an informed guess on how a court might rule.

 

[McBain]

I've noticed this thread was started by @kithnou who is a Kiwi who loves Trump.

Has he been quiet recently because he realised the error of his ways or would he have wanted Trump to be the ruler of New Zealand during this pandemic???

Nah he’s a Melbournite probably still in lockdown for superspreading and refusing to wear a mask.

 

[RAFUH]

 

[kithnou]

I've noticed this thread was started by @kithnou who is a Kiwi who loves Trump.

Wrong on both fronts.

#fakenews

 

[DanEFC92]

 

[TN Toffee]

Good stuff there from the least racist person at the rally.

 

[TN Toffee]

trumpcovidplan.com

What an absolute masterclass in trolling from the Biden campaign.

 

[Ruairi77]

Wrong on both fronts.

#fakenews

You definitely seem to have been a trump fan when you started this thread.

 

[SteveSC]

trumpcovidplan.com

What an absolute masterclass in trolling from the Biden campaign.

But hang on a second we have been reliably informed by a certain Finnish poster that Biden and his team lack enthusiasm. So this cannot be them surely.

Also hilarious that they did this.