Could supreme court killing ACA be a boon for liberals?

[pppolitics]

Now, they can pack the courts and ram through single-payer health care.

[brucejoel99]

Millions more losing their health care in the middle of a f**king global pandemic would be a boon for nobody.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Millions more losing their health care in the middle of a f**king global pandemic would be a boon for nobody.

[7,052,770]

No, millions of people, including several of my family members, rely on the ACA. Without it, their preexisting conditions would price them out of having any possibility of insurance, and even that's IF an insurance company will sell them a product at all.

This is real life, not a game.  Also, there is nowhere near 50 Senators willing to pass single-payer, so we'd lose the game anyway if it was. Closer to 50 than than we had in 2008, but still not there.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Losing the ACA won't make single-payer happen, despite what some Rose Twitter folks may have told you.  All it will do is back things up twenty years and force us to go through the ACA fight for a second time next time we get enough power to pass policy, if that ever happens again.

Not to mention hundreds of thousands of people will die or go bankrupt, and millions more will suffer tremendously because for all the ragging it gets from both sides the ACA is actually really, really good.

Unlike your average Republican, I'm not willing to allow that to happen even if there were some political gain involved.

[Ferguson97]

Implementing single-payer will take years and we are in the middle of a pandemic. So no, it would not be a boon.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

If elected Democrats wanted to expand access to healthcare, they would not need the ACA's end or court packing to do it. It's possible the ACA's end will create the political will to primary out a lot of the worst elected Democrats who stand in the way of reforms that are very feasible even while the filibuster remains intact and regardless of whether or not the ACA survives (dramatically lowering the Medicare eligibility age, for instance), but I remain skeptical of any supposed 'breaking point'  for the base (one exists somewhere, but the probability of any given policy defeat represented said point is rather low).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It would be a mess if ACA was struck down with nothing to replace it, since it has been so integrated into our healthcare system as a whole.   Hard to say what steps into the vacuum; probably a public option at the very least, and the filibuster ended in order to accomplish it.   In any case, if people lose their health insurance because it is struck down by the Court it could make the Court seem a lot less legitimate in the eyes of those people.  That's why I don't think the ACA is going anywhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a unanimous decision.

[Badger]

It would be a mess if ACA was struck down with nothing to replace it, since it has been so integrated into our healthcare system as a whole.   Hard to say what steps into the vacuum; probably a public option at the very least, and the filibuster ended in order to accomplish it.   In any case, if people lose their health insurance because it is struck down by the Court it could make the Court seem a lot less legitimate in the eyes of those people.  That's why I don't think the ACA is going anywhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a unanimous decision.

Disagree with those last two sentences, in an otherwise insightful post. Do not believe for a second there is a possibility that Gorsuch will honour stare desis, but I think it is just as likely he will take whatever opportunity there is too, if not outright repeal the ACA, effectively neutering it.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Also, single payer is really bad.

[pppolitics]

Also, there is nowhere near 50 Senators willing to pass single-payer, so we'd lose the game anyway if it was. Closer to 50 than than we had in 2008, but still not there.

There is no political will to pass single-payer right now, but if the supreme court strikes down ACA, Democratic senators who are "no(s)" right now would hop on board.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Also, single payer is really bad.

Pitching cost/efficiency-based arguments against single payer (the principal arguments that come up on here beyond "not enough votes"/electability concerns) while simultaneously supporting costly coronavirus lockdowns is bizarre.

[Ferguson97]

Also, single payer is really bad.

Pitching cost/efficiency-based arguments against single payer (the principal arguments that come up on here beyond "not enough votes"/electability concerns)while simultaneously advocating for lockdown measures is wild.

Not the OP, but my concern is all the things the GOP would do to single-payer once they have a trifecta.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Also, single payer is really bad.

Pitching cost/efficiency-based arguments against single payer (the principal arguments that come up on here beyond "not enough votes"/electability concerns) while simultaneously supporting costly coronavirus lockdowns is bizarre.

Coronavirus lockdowns are temporary.  Single payer is proposed as a permanent COVID-sized impact on the economy, with costs projected to continue growing beyond the nation's ability to sustain them in perpetuity.

But that's not even in the top 5 reasons why it's bad.  We've had this fight on this very board several times over the last year.

[Splash]

No, for many of the reasons already stated.

Ironically, SCOTUS striking down the ACA would also curtail much of the Trump Administration's health care agenda, as well. Many of the regulatory and administrative actions they have taken over the past four years have been couched in authority provided for under the PPACA.

[Santander]

Millions more losing their health care in the middle of a f**king global pandemic would be a boon for nobody.

The federal government is paying for COVID treatment for the uninsured, so this is not a good argument.

[Splash]

Millions more losing their health care in the middle of a f**king global pandemic would be a boon for nobody.

The federal government is paying for COVID treatment for the uninsured, so this is not a good argument.

Uninsured individuals are much less likely than their counterparts to seek medical care when needed, obviously due to concerns about cost. These individuals often develop chronic conditions that are very similar to the comorbidities linked to COVID. Even if the federal government created an entitlement to reimburse providers for COVID testing and treatment (btw, they did not; these aren't open-ended appropriations and the funds are running out), you're still going to see more deaths from COVID than you would otherwise witness in a world without the ACA because you would have a lot more people with untreated chronic conditions done in by the virus.

[Anni di ghiaccio]

Also, single payer is really bad.

Pitching cost/efficiency-based arguments against single payer (the principal arguments that come up on here beyond "not enough votes"/electability concerns) while simultaneously supporting costly coronavirus lockdowns is bizarre.

Coronavirus lockdowns are temporary.  Single payer is proposed as a permanent COVID-sized impact on the economy, with costs projected to continue growing beyond the nation's ability to sustain them in perpetuity.

But that's not even in the top 5 reasons why it's bad.  We've had this fight on this very board several times over the last year.

I sometimes wonder if you have any coherent political ideology beyond "Bernie bad". Your characterization of single payer is so far from the realm of reality it's unreal. Comparing it to a pandemic? When it would make healthcare cheaper for starters? That's not only stupid, it's disrespectful to the many, many people who have died because of America's failure to make healthcare a national priority.

Any "Democrat" who supports the profiteering healthcare model would be on the right wing in any other country. Not even the mainstream conservatives want to go to something resembling America's disastrous model. 

[GeneralMacArthur]

Also, single payer is really bad.

Pitching cost/efficiency-based arguments against single payer (the principal arguments that come up on here beyond "not enough votes"/electability concerns) while simultaneously supporting costly coronavirus lockdowns is bizarre.

Coronavirus lockdowns are temporary.  Single payer is proposed as a permanent COVID-sized impact on the economy, with costs projected to continue growing beyond the nation's ability to sustain them in perpetuity.

But that's not even in the top 5 reasons why it's bad.  We've had this fight on this very board several times over the last year.

I sometimes wonder if you have any coherent political ideology beyond "Bernie bad". Your characterization of single payer is so far from the realm of reality it's unreal. Comparing it to a pandemic? When it would make healthcare cheaper for starters? That's not only stupid, it's disrespectful to the many, many people who have died because of America's failure to make healthcare a national priority.

Any "Democrat" who supports the profiteering healthcare model would be on the right wing in any other country. Not even the mainstream conservatives want to go to something resembling America's disastrous model. 

Single-payer health care would immediately put millions of people out of work permanently and would cost the federal government trillions of dollars in extra spending every year.  In that way, it is analogous to the impact that COVID has had on the economy.

[7,052,770]

Also, there is nowhere near 50 Senators willing to pass single-payer, so we'd lose the game anyway if it was. Closer to 50 than than we had in 2008, but still not there.

There is no political will to pass single-payer right now, but if the supreme court strikes down ACA, Democratic senators who are "no(s)" right now would hop on board.

A few of them might, but we're still along way from 40, much less 50.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

No, due to the loophole in the tax penalty law, A 6-3 CRT would only eliminate the tax penalty. Blue collar workers whom are working are on Medicaid, and if you have a hardship, you dont have to pay tax penalty as well if you are on SSI you dont have to file income tax. Issue is moot