People like you.
no one for this has shown me where the SCOTUS has the authority or the IRS for that matter to re-write the law.
which is what they did. that is unconstitutional. they do not have the ability to re-write a law or change the wording of a law yet they did it anyway.
there is a political will we are just going to have to wait till 2016 when Obama is gone in order to do it.
I did and you lost.
Mean Old Republicans Hate Poor People?
no you quoted what you wanted from the articles and ignore the rest of it that says different.
still won't matter they don't have the 3/4's in the senate to override a veto.
Grow its economy? Balanced its budget? Created a Surplus?
You are the first American in 20 years who has shown a true understanding of what it is.
The roads in my State are paid by my state, county roads like the one I live on are paid for by taxes taken at the county level.
As for Obamacare, if the Repubs take the White House in 2016 its days will be numbered.
Yep, they've gone from re-interpreting the Constitution and what words mean to re-interpreting what legislation means. Why have a congress, just pass a few blanket bills and allow the SCOTUS to re-interpret their meaning as the demand requires.
OK, if six SC Justices, experts in Constitutional law, disagree with your interpretation, then it's possible they understand the "interpret in concert with the Constitution" better than you do. Not sure what else to say.
I said "one of the biggest" and no one would argue that the credit/subsidy mechanism that makes insurance affordable to the poor and is costing $trillions over time is a minor provision. You're splitting hairs for some reason.
If it was a drafting error, it's clear the majority made the correct decision.
It's not the "merit of Scalia's argument." The idea that the provision was intended to be written in such a way that NO ONE understood the practical impact of not setting up an exchange is laughable, absurd, ridiculous.
Again, unless you want to cite some law here, mistake ==> majority made the correct decision.
We aren't making progress. 6 justices disagree with you, and the law stands. That decision was sound. The dissent's interpretation was arguably also legally sound. The SC job is making a decision when the law isn't clear and there are competing interpretations, and they made it - that's how the system works. Bottom line is simple decisions with a clear right/wrong answer don't get to the SC.
The article states that "71 percent of the combined increase in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014 was attributable to 25 states and the District of Columbia adopting the Obamacare Medicaid expansion."
And gratefully, these changes aren't going anywhere either. They will be here for decades, thankfully. I say it's long overdue.
Reinterpreting? (There's no hyphen.) Who does the plain old "interpreting"? I'll tell ya. It's the Court.
Canada is just one of the nations in the world different from the US in this regard. Notwithstanding, Canada, nor Germany, nor Britain, nor Japan, nor ............. are "second rate countries". Protection of one's citizenry, all of one's citizenry, is a barometer of first world status. That can come in many forms and is one of the primary functions of government.
mmi said:Not entirely. The reactionary wing just figures it's their own fault that they're poor and the hell with 'em.
What is never happening is the repeal of the ACA and can only I hope the GOP candidate will be in favor of repeal. That will guarantee a Democratic win across the board. The idea that you believe voters will elect another Bush is quite laughable too.
you have no idea what you've posted do you?
It only took about an hour or two to read because it's double spaced and I can speed read. If you don't read it then how do you know you don't like what's in it, right?
Jiminy Cricket!!!Holy crap!!!!
Is this Nancy Pelosi??
She never read the freaking thing.
The largest block of text
where is the better off?
Ocare open enrollment ends at the first half of the year each year. Those are the latest numbers for open enrollment until the final numbers for 2015 come in.
Perhaps you're just not old enough to understand what has happened to language.
I could careless what they say that was the intent of the bill the FACT they got it WRONG is of no consequence but your appeal to authority is amusing.
the only way you are right is if you believe the SCOTUS is infallible please prove this.
Its pointless to debate a SCOTUS decision, because our opinions are all irrelevant.
Compared to America you're second rate. America says jump, Canada asks how high.
If the American people don't want Obamacare, and we don't, then it won't outlast Obama. Your defeatism might be true if we were talking about Canadians, but we're talking about Americans here. We're doers.
Is that the relevant measure?
>>it is not the job of the Supreme Court to correct wording of legislation.
If a law clearly intends an outcome that is inconsistent with a minor textual error, it is the Court's job to discern the legislative intent.
>>I am suggesting they made an error.
The Congress included a minor textual error.
>>the Supreme Court. Their clear job is to interpret the law vs. challenge, not edit and repair what Congress did not handle well.
No, you are wrong. Wrong in the sense that the Court did interpret the law. It's not "editing."
Maybe the Cons will finally stop trying to rely on legislation from the bench. Perhaps they will get smart and actually work WITH the PPACA (fix the legislation, where appropriate and expand state exchanges), because they are out of options in working against it.
They had time to support BHO on free trade when his own party did not. As for Obamacare, if the Repubs take the White House in 2016 its days will be numbered.
This is really good stuff. Glad that we don't have to re-legislate the entire healthcare law and now we can focus on using the tools it provides to supply better healthcare for cheaper.
I wouldn't go that far. Yer right that electoral politics is the solution, but public opinion plays a role in that. And debate can foster understanding and consensus.
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?