With that said, with all the scrutiny the bill went through the Supreme court has no choice but to rule against Obamacare regarding the states and the subsidy issue.
You sure go out of your way to defend a proven liar, remember Obama got the liar of the year award. You will convince no one except yourself.
I'm not sure what the Supreme Court will do. Normally, judges of all leanings read statutes to mean what they were intended to mean, and to read them in a logical way where the whole statute makes sense. They don't normally try to look for technicalities and gotchas where legislators used the wrong word or whatever. Doing that would be putting form over substance, which just about every court in the country has gone on at length against. The only exception, usually, is that they will read a criminal statute as favorably as possible for the defendant.
But, this is a very strange court we have right now. Three things characterize the conservative majority- 1) they favor corporations over people in every instance, 2) they are incredibly susceptible to empty technicalities and legal trickery and 3) they are partisan Republicans. So, this is probably the most likely court to put form over substance and rule against a Democratic bill that corporations don't like that we've had in many generations.
It's one of the many, many, things that all Republicans perceive as objective proof that the left is evil and that all Democrats think is just Republican silliness.
Is Elizabeth Warren about why the trade deal is kept secret?
Yes
No
Maybe/other
[h=3]Warren: Trade Deal "Secret Because If Details Were Made Public Now, The Public Would Oppose It"[/h]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/21/warren_trade_deal_secret_because_if_details_were_made_public_now_the_public_would_oppose_it.html
I say yes she is correct. The only reason for keeping something secret is because you do not want others to know.If this trade deal was a good thing then I would think they would want everyone to know.They would not be trying to hide the details of this trade deal.
I have to repeat, with all the scrutiny that you outlined the bill would have gone through, it is clear the meaning of the bill. Thus I predict the SC will rule against it.
It's no all Republicans for Pets sake, it was a total lie of the bill. Pure and simple, plus receiving the liar of the yr award. I have to admire your consistent loyalty to turn these lies into something that it isn't. But it doesn't work, does naive mean anything to you.
There isn't really anybody who honestly thinks that is what the statute is meant to mean. If they rule to strike the subsidies, it will be purely on the basis of a technicality about the wording. That would be pretty sad to see the Supreme Court stoop so low. That is an important job. It isn't meant to be petty game playing.
Another aspect of this to remember is that killing the subsidies would create a major disaster both for the people of red states and for the Republican Party. Most of the 8 million people who would lose their healthcare are in red states and the blue states that don't have exchanges yet will just quickly set up state exchanges. So, the Republicans will need to choose between basically voting for the ACA despite all their previous ranting and getting subsidies back to the people they represent, or facing the fallout of taking health care away from millions of voters in their districts. The court would be hurting an awful lot of Republican individuals, putting the GOP in a very awkward spot politically and giving a lot of people an urgent reason to want to make sure that the next conservative Supreme Court Justice to retire is replaced with a liberal. I suspect Roberts at least won't be crazy enough to do that.
No, really only Republicans are up in arms about the supposed "lie". It's a pretty heavily manufactured sentiment really.
The lie Democrats are up in arms about is the giant list of totally insane conspiracy theories and lies about the ACA that practically every Republican politician could not stop spouting off... We were going to have a doctor shortage and death panels. Costs were going to massively shoot up. Some even insisted that it was really a eugenics program... Nobody was going to sign up. Etc., etc. Those are all far more clear cut lies and far more off base predictions than Obama's statement. But, you're a Republican, so those don't even occur to you as being possible issues. But you see Obama's statement as a big deal somehow... Democrats don't share your perspective on that at all. The way we see it, the Republicans were caught red-handed in a huge string of totally insane lies and they now look like utterly dishonest fools.
You praised all the scrutiny the bill got, there is no technicality as you call it. It was deliberate to force the states to have an exchange. It backfired and the SC will rule against it. And now you have no control to fix it.
Let me clear it up for you, the SC has no power to measure the results, it rules on the merits.
But the best part is Obamacare is done, dead, no more. And that is the best thing of all.
That whole narrative about trying to coerce the states into setting up exchanges was first dreamed up years after the bill was signed into law. If I recall correctly, it was somebody at the American Enterprise Institute (or maybe it was Heritage) that came up with it during a brainstorming conference to try to come up with ways to mount legal challenges against the ACA.
That argument kind of cuts both ways. Yes, the Supreme Court is bad at evaluating policy impacts. So, some people argue that means that it should just ignore policy impacts and rule purely on legal doctrine. But, that leads to a kind of a bizarre result where the Supreme Court is making massive policy decisions, like eliminating health coverage for about 8 million people, precisely because it is really bad at making those kinds of decisions. So, other people argue that the Supreme Court being bad at policy making means that it should try to steer away from making big changes to policy, which would mean preserving the subsidies.
You may not be clear about what is at issue in the case. There is no outcome that would mean nixing the entire ACA. What is at issue is only the federal subsidies for people in states that didn't set up exchanges. If the plaintiffs win completely, that would mean that the federal government could no longer pay the subsidies to people who got insurance through the federal exchange. So, basically, it would mean that poor people in red states would no longer be able to afford their insurance unless either the federal Republicans fixed it or their state legislatures fixed it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?