- Joined
- Feb 3, 2010
- Messages
- 16,560
- Reaction score
- 10,794
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
What matters is the language of the law, and in drafting ACA they all failed to take their "floor time" speaking and apply it to the actual language used. The government should have lost the case forcing the remedy to be in Congress, which is how this is supposed to work. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be crafting the law for where Congress failed.
The problem I have with all of this is that it is not something that was written years and years ago, it is a new piece of legislation and they could have written "federal" in there just as easily as the wrote "state". They didn't.
Words don't matter anymore? Thanks, SCOTUS, you suck.
Anthony60 said:I just heard a little bit of Obama speaking. One thing he mentioned was keeping premiums down. I just wonder how anyone on the left swallows that one, and still claims to have integrity. He will keep lying as long as they keep supporting it.
The problem I have with all of this is that it is not something that was written years and years ago, it is a new piece of legislation and they could have written "federal" in there just as easily as the wrote "state". They didn't.
Words don't matter anymore? Thanks, SCOTUS, you suck.
Too many threads on this, but this is more or less my post for the other one...
The dissenting opinion is right, this decision is a gross misinterpretation of the actual ACA language. Some seven times in ACA is specifies subsidies and tax credits though "Exchange established by the State." The majority in this 6-3 decision just decided that the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and by extension, the Department of Health and Human Services equates to a State. The argument can now be made that by precedence on what is equal to a State. If a law references a State, the Federal government can now argue any relevant department is now capable of being involved in that definition.
No, I not saying that at all. All rulings are not the same. Bringing down Obamacare would be especially messy as it would be the cause of many deaths of many people who depend upon Obamacare.
I don't know that this would stand up as a de-facto repeal of the 10th Amendment but this country has been heading that way for a good 70 years now. This decision is disappointing but certainly not surprising.
They didn't craft the law. They ruled that the law, though not clear in this instance, should be enforced in the way that it was clearly intended to be enforced by the people that passed it.
The courts rule on the intent of the law all the time.
It's their obligation to work on legislation as they see fit. I prefer Republicans not clean up the mess Democrats made. It's their plan, they passed it without a single Republican vote, in the dead of night, during the Holidays. Let them clean up their mess. If people are unsatisfied, let them remember who was responsible.
Seems very fair to me.
Then the remedy is legislative change.
The ultimate point of the Supreme Court is to decide on the merit of a challenge based the case made vs. the wording of the law in question and that case made. It is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to determine what should happen when the government *thinks* something should have happened according to legislative plan, but did not for whatever reason.
ACA as written is very explicit in what tax credits and subsidies are to be applied to, and in seven separate parts of ACA it explicitly says "Exchange established by the State." What ACA does *not* say about tax credits and subsidies is an exchange established by the State or the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The dissenting opinion is right, the Federal argument should have failed forcing Congressional remedy for the mistake made.
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.
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.
AMERICA.....HAS JUST BEEN GRUBERED!
Didn't realize they had a veto proof majority.
Who knows about fair, but their damn job is to govern. If they don't like the law, their job now is to change it, not bitch about it.
And democrats can't clean up their mess because the GOP controls Congress.
They don't but does that mean until they get a veto proof majority, the GOPers only job is to sit on their asses and bitch all day long about democrats?
The problem I have with all of this is that it is not something that was written years and years ago, it is a new piece of legislation and they could have written "federal" in there just as easily as the wrote "state". They didn't.
Words don't matter anymore? Thanks, SCOTUS, you suck.
Hmmm...my insurance dropped to $80 per month, no co-pay, no prescription fee, no difference whether in-vs-out of network coverage, no deductible. I pay $80 a month, and I can get literally any health care I need with no out-of-pocket cost. Ditto the other members of my immediate family. Most of the people I know experienced similar salutary effects. I don't know anyone whose premium increased. The stories I've read of people who did have increased premiums were of people who had super-high deductibles and co-pays or something beforehand, which plans the insurance companies decided to drop.
Who knows about fair, but their damn job is to govern. If they don't like the law, their job now is to change it, not bitch about it.
And democrats can't clean up their mess because the GOP controls Congress.
I'd love for you to provide one credible source … that projected that "many deaths of many people" would result if the ruling was the opposite.
they are expecting a 20-40% increase again this year on obamacare plans how is that getting cheaper?
Utter nonsense. This ruling doesn't affect those who were fortunate enough to now qualify under the ACA for Medicaid coverage which is by far the vast majority of newly ensured. I'd love for you to provide one credible source (just a hint, that's not Media Matters) that projected that "many deaths of many people" would result if the ruling was the opposite.
That clearly was NOT the intent of any drafters of the legislation, nor did anyone believe that was the intent, nor does a reading of the law support your bizarre claim here. None of the states delegated their exchanges to the federal government, with the assumption it would deny subsidies to that state's residents. Nothing in the implementation of the federal exchanges indicates that people who use federal exchanges did not qualify for subsidies.the intent was not to give every person subsidies. the intent was to force states to setup exchanges and the incentive was to give them subsidies in return.
that is why they wrote the law the way they did.
lolof course the SCOTUS is just covering their rear end because the got the first decision on obamacare wrong as well. Roberts is trying to protect himself and instead of
standing up for the constitution they continue to hand more and more power over to the government.
we will have to wait till 2016 when he is voted out
I have had nothing but major premium increases as my company has to comply with obamacare and they shove more of the cost onto me.
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?