Health insurance ruling expected Thursday – and we want to hear from you!


PPACA Premium Chart

Maximum Out-of-Pocket Premium as Percentage of Family Income and federal poverty level (Source: CRS)

From NCPR Program Director Jackie Sauter:

We’re standing by for tomorrow’s anticipated ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.  This decision will be one of the most important legal and policy cases of our generation.  We expect the court’s ruling will be released around 10am.  The Court could uphold or strike down all or parts of the law, and it’s expected to be a long and complicated decision that may take time to fully analyze and understand.  NCPR will provide special and extensive coverage of the decision from NPR and other news sources throughout the day tomorrow and continuing coverage in the days ahead.


From NCPR Reporter Julie Grant:

We want to talk with folks in the North Country who care about this issue.  Please contact me if you’re interested in talking about health care, health insurance, and what you think about the Supreme Court ruling on the ACA.  Please provide a phone number, as I’d like to do some interviews for broadcast.  I look forward to hearing from you!  Thanks.   [email protected]

60 Comments on “Health insurance ruling expected Thursday – and we want to hear from you!”

Leave a Comment
  1. Larry says:

    How would you characterize Hermit’s comment, “is it any wonder i’m advancing the view that no one should believe anything he says? it’s pure clown car stuff.”?

    Sounds like indirectly calling me a liar or a clown. Hermit also directly called my opinion “nonsense.” I won’t stand for it.

  2. Walker says:

    So two wrongs make a right?

  3. Larry says:

    Sounds like a schoolyard argument. Why not chide Hermit for beginning the insults? Because you’re both on the same side and can’t stand anyone who disagrees. The snotty, disingenuous comments usually begin on the left and so does the censure when one replies in kind. As I said before, I won’t stand for it.

  4. Walker says:

    Larry, the Golden Rule is schoolyard stuff, and if people lived by it, the world would be a much better place.

    So here you go: Hermit, you were wrong to resort to the clown car comment– you should have left it to demonstrating that Larry was factually wrong.

  5. myown says:

    This is kind of like the typical argument between Conservative and Liberal politicians – when Liberals cite facts and figures and Conservatives spout only ideology. With nothing to support their opinion Conservatives then manufacture some imaginary slight having nothing to do with the issue and demand an apology. The Liberals cave and apologize and the Conservatives feel they won the argument and their opinion is valid because the Liberals apologized.

    To wit:

    Con – Lowering taxes will spur economic growth and tax receipts will rise.

    Lib – There is no data that supports that claim. In fact, all the data from real world applications of that theory demonstrate its fallacy.

    Con – Lowering taxes will spur economic growth and tax receipts will rise.

    Lib – You are an idiot.

    Con – You hurt my feelings, you should apologize.

    Lib – I apologize.

    Con – I accept your apology for criticizing my opinion that lowering taxes will spur economic growth and tax receipts will rise.

    And the docile press reports, “So there are your two valid competing points of view.”

  6. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    The apology should come from Larry. Larry knew he was mis-using facts. HT pointed out that Larry was being disingenuous and this is a very serious issue for a Republican style democracy.

    Larry is someone who regularly bears false witness. If Larry is a religious person Larry should repent because Larry’s soul is in danger. When Larry failed to acknowledge his sin of bearing false witness Larry fell into the trap of the sin of Pride, a Cardinal Sin. By repetition of sins Larry is verging into the territory of Mortal Sin.

  7. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    Everyone please note how Larry misquoted me previously in this thread.

    I said, “Providing universal health care is a human right that supersedes the Constitution …”

    Larry quoted, “universal health care is a human right that supersedes the Constitution” and then went on: “Wow….think about that statement for a minute. Good to have, yes. Even, arguably essential. But, “a human right”…I don’t think so. And certainly, in a legal or governmental sense, nothing should supersede the Constitution. That certain things do is a shame and so will this be, if it passes.”

    I am not surprised that Larry would disagree with my contention. But Larry should, as Larry recommends “…think about that statement for a minute.”

    Let me provide just one of an infinite number of hypotheticals. Suppose a person is found grievously injured who will surely die without aid. Is there in the Constitution any stipulation to say that a passerby must render aid? If that injured person were in Canada or Mexico or Zimbabwe would the judgement of whether or not to render aid be any different?

  8. hermit thrush says:

    don’t worry myown, the last thing on my mind is apologizing, since i have zero to apologize for. unfortunately the next-to-last thing on my mind is saying anything more right now, as it’s been a busy day! i’ll try to find the time tomorrow.

  9. knuckleheadedliberal says:

    I like clown cars…

  10. mervel says:

    I own a clown car.

Leave a Reply