BREAKING**Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

[paperview]

If this were upheld, Republican governors and legislators in the states without exchanges will get hurt the worst,

because they will have the power to

1. either immediately create exchanges, or,

2. see all their own people who are in the federal exchange lose the affordability of their healthcare.

It's not going to be upheld.

lol, if that's the case do you think all the RWnuts in this thread who are praising the institution of our courts will maintain that high praise?

What do you think?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Breaking: Fourth Circuit panel unanimously upholds Obamacare subsidies for all eligible purchasers -


See more at: Breaking: Fourth Circuit panel unanimously upholds Obamacare subsidies for all eligible purchasers | The Progressive Pulse

You won't see the idiot author of this thread starting a thread about the above.

You're late carbsie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9489233-post134.html

I had a tuna and egg salad sandwich to finish.

 

[g5000]

A panel of the appeals court that covers Washington, D.C., ruled 2-1 that the subsidies were and are illegal if issued through that federal exchange, as opposed to one set up by a state.

But about two hours later, a Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 3-0 in another case that the subsidies are legal for people who buy plans on HealthCare.gov, which the federal government operates in 36 states.

The actual headline for the OP link: Split decision! Fed appeals courts disagree on Obamacare subsidies

 

[paperview]

Just to refresh: The topic title and OP are very misleading.

There have been two appeals court decisions.

One said the subsidies for federal exchange subscribers are illegal.

The other said those subsidies are legal.

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Premature ejaculation.

She does that a lot.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The when the ER negotiates its bill down....depending on the income of the patient....sometimes to zero.....the "loss" is passed on to the state who, in turn gets subsidies from the federal government.

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

 

[Jarhead]

going to the Er doesnt mean its free.

It is not free.

You are billed...for the ER itself, the doctors on staff at the time and the nurses on straff at the time.

However, the bill itself is negotiable based on ones income.

My brother negotiated down to less than 10%...and had both the doctors fee and the nurses fee waived.

SO the tax payer ended up paying the difference.

thats not free..

it is free to those that can not afford to pay anything.

And I never complained about that.

Now, healthcare is STILL free to those that can not afford it.

But now we have government more involved in the lives of those that DO pay for it.

 

[Jarhead]

The when the ER negotiates its bill down....depending on the income of the patient....sometimes to zero.....the "loss" is passed on to the state who, in turn gets subsidies from the federal government.

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

You are 100% wrong.

Educate yourself.

Cyas.

 

[Care4all]

It would take just a few days for Congress to pass a bill to extend the employer mandate deadline.

It would take just a few days for Congress to pass a bill to allow users of the federal health care exchange to be eligible for insurance subsidies.


So why aren't they?


Hmmm...

Hummmm.....It would also take just a few days to open across state line purchasing of HC policies bring prices way down and would remove the gov't involvement in personal health care...
So why don't they???

Becasue that would be a federal over reach and TAKE AWAY the individual State's right to govern and regulate their own State.... if I was able to cross over in to New Hampshire and buy one of their policies, they would not have a network of doctors and hospitals in my state for one, and they would have to follow Maine Law in my state for insurance regulatory reasons because my state is different than New Hampshire's, and someone from Connecticut, the regs of the State would be different etc etc etc...unless the Fed's over reached and says it's not in the State's own power to regulate businesses in their State etc etc etc.....

It's a NIGHTMARE, and it is a stepping stone to the government taking ALL of the individual state gvt rights away from them....

It sounds like a good plan, a good way to lower insurance.but it is not as easy as you would think, without destroying State Rights !!!

You all, and every one, honest to goodness, should be against this!

 

[bendog]

The when the ER negotiates its bill down....depending on the income of the patient....sometimes to zero.....the "loss" is passed on to the state who, in turn gets subsidies from the federal government.

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

Well, the federal govt does send dollars down, because any hospital getting medicare dollars has to provide emergency treatment, but that's hardly at no cost to other citizens, and as you posted cost is shifted from the noninsured onto insured, which in turn drives up premiums. Still, pretty uncivil behavior by any person who actually has access to private insurance.

 

[paperview]

A little background on the ruling. (yes, from a progressive source, so anyone who knocks the messenger, stuff it --)



"A little after 10am Tuesday morning, two Republican judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered much of the Affordable Care Act defunded. Just two hours later, another federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit, issued a unanimous opinion upholding the same subsidies that were struck down in the DC Circuit’s order.

As we explained this morning, both cases hinge upon a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act.

Obamacare gives states the option to run a health insurance exchange selling coverage to their residents, or they may elect to have the federal government run this exchange.

If read in isolation, one line of the Affordable Care Act suggests that only “an Exchange established by the State” can offer subsidies to help people pay for health insurance in the exchange. The DC Circuit’s opinion relied on that line to conclude that federally-run exchange subsidies must be defunded.

Yet, as the Supreme Court has made clear — and as the Fourth Circuit reiterates in its opinion — a federal law should not be interpreted by reading a single line out of context.

Rather, “a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation” as the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” A full explanation of why the DC Circuit misread the law and ignored other key provisions of the Affordable Care Act can be read here."

Two Hours After A Court Strikes Down Obamacare Subsidies, Another Appeals Court Upholds Them | ThinkProgress

 

[Jarhead]

The when the ER negotiates its bill down....depending on the income of the patient....sometimes to zero.....the "loss" is passed on to the state who, in turn gets subsidies from the federal government.

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

Those costs have prompted financially strapped hospitals to rely on a complex system of shifting costs. Most of the burden falls on taxpayers, with the government providing tens of billions of dollars annually to help hospitals care for the uninsured. Privately insured Americans also pay a price as insurers raise premiums to reflect higher charges from hospitals.

Trauma in the ER: Who pays for the uninsured?

Whereas you are correct and SOME is reflected in premiums....MOST of the burden falls on the taxpayer.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Just to refresh: The topic title and OP are very misleading.

There have been two appeals court decisions.

One said the subsidies for federal exchange subscribers are illegal.

The other said those subsidies are legal.

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Premature ejaculation.

Excuse you, STUPID.. When I listed this article it was the only decision.. Dumb fucker.

 

[Jarhead]

The when the ER negotiates its bill down....depending on the income of the patient....sometimes to zero.....the "loss" is passed on to the state who, in turn gets subsidies from the federal government.

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

Well, the federal govt does send dollars down, because any hospital getting medicare dollars has to provide emergency treatment, but that's hardly at no cost to other citizens, and as you posted cost is shifted from the noninsured onto insured, which in turn drives up premiums. Still, pretty uncivil behavior by any person who actually has access to private insurance.

And, as I said, we were OK with that.

Now, nothing has changed from a "tax payer covering the cost of those that can not afford healthcare" standpoint....but those that CAN afford it are told what to buy, and told they MUST buy.

Before....in the eyes of the less fortunate, the taxpayer was helping them out.

Now, in the eyes of the less fortunate, the government is helping them out.

Not a good way to eliminate a divide.

 

[Bush92]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Good. Perhaps Robert's will have his head out of his ass by the time the High Court hears the arguments.

 

[bendog]

The when the ER negotiates its bill down....depending on the income of the patient....sometimes to zero.....the "loss" is passed on to the state who, in turn gets subsidies from the federal government.

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

Those costs have prompted financially strapped hospitals to rely on a complex system of shifting costs. Most of the burden falls on taxpayers, with the government providing tens of billions of dollars annually to help hospitals care for the uninsured. Privately insured Americans also pay a price as insurers raise premiums to reflect higher charges from hospitals.

Trauma in the ER: Who pays for the uninsured?

Whereas you are correct and SOME is reflected in premiums....MOST of the burden falls on the taxpayer.

Right so you relative freeloaded off the treasury (and the rest of us) mostly and then passed some costs also to privately insured people who take the personal responsibility to obtain insuranace. Sweet.

Do yourself a favor. Stop posting to me because you're outing yourself as a freeloading cheapskate, and that can't be making your day any better than its making mine, and it's not doing much for me.

 

[saveliberty]

The when the ER negotiates its bill down....depending on the income of the patient....sometimes to zero.....the "loss" is passed on to the state who, in turn gets subsidies from the federal government.

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

You are 100% wrong.

Educate yourself.

Cyas.

I have witnessed four changes since Obamacare:

1. Higher premiums.
2. Higher deductables.
3. Hospital had a plan which you could have a 20% discount if you paid your part upon receiving the initial bill. Not allowed any more.
4. Our employer would help cover part of our deductables. Disallowed by insurance companies now.

 

[g5000]

Just to refresh: The topic title and OP are very misleading.

There have been two appeals court decisions.

One said the subsidies for federal exchange subscribers are illegal.

The other said those subsidies are legal.

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Premature ejaculation.

Excuse you, STUPID.. When I listed this article it was the only decision.. Dumb fucker.

You still ejaculated prematurely. Even if there was only the one decision, it isn't over until the US Supreme Court decides.

Your premature celebration would be like being stupid enough to call the 2012 election for Romney months before the election.


Oh, wait...

 

[bendog]

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

You are 100% wrong.

Educate yourself.

Cyas.

I have witnessed four changes since Obamacare:

1. Higher premiums.
2. Higher deductables.
3. Hospital had a plan which you could have a 20% discount if you paid your part upon receiving the initial bill. Not allowed any more.
4. Our employer would help cover part of our deductables. Disallowed by insurance companies now.

Who said Obamacare was a good scheme?

 

[Jarhead]

Wrong - the cost is passed to the healthcare consumer who is overcharged to cover the lo9ss.

You keep refusing to admit your mistake.

Pretty disappointing ... but not too surprising.

Those costs have prompted financially strapped hospitals to rely on a complex system of shifting costs. Most of the burden falls on taxpayers, with the government providing tens of billions of dollars annually to help hospitals care for the uninsured. Privately insured Americans also pay a price as insurers raise premiums to reflect higher charges from hospitals.

Trauma in the ER: Who pays for the uninsured?

Whereas you are correct and SOME is reflected in premiums....MOST of the burden falls on the taxpayer.

Right so you relative freeloaded off the treasury (and the rest of us) mostly and then passed some costs also to privately insured people who take the personal responsibility to obtain insuranace. Sweet.

Do yourself a favor. Stop posting to me because you're outing yourself as a freeloading cheapskate, and that can't be making your day any better than its making mine, and it's not doing much for me.

lol....funny guy.

Actually, He is not well off. He is dirt poor. Does not like to work. Hates to commute. Likes to watch late night TV. SO I guess he is a freeloader.

Now...exactly how that makes ME a freeloading cheapskate, I have not a clue.

I believe you don't either.

You see, you misread my post and now you don't want to admit it so you are acting like a child and saying "don't talk to me"...

But I will talk to whomever I want. Feel free to put me on ignore.

But the bottom line....you misread my post and it brought the child out in you.

 

[kaz]

If you do not offer a comprehensive alternate plan, at the very least it means you don't give a shit about those who are struggling.

So it's our job to come up with a plan for the Federal Government to provide comprehensive health care

Nope. That is not what I said.

You added "for the Federal Government to provide" in your own head.

So then who exactly are you proposing comes up with a plan?

I do have a plan by the way. Two words. Free markets. The problem with health care is that government has a plan. And keeps making it worse. Then we keep letting government solve it with more control and making it worse.

Free markets work fine, health care is in no way free market. Which is exactly the problem.