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

[kaz]

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.

I'm a business owner. I don't have a group plan, I have an HRA. So my employees have individual plans. With the HRA, they pay their own premiums, but I made tax deductible contributions to reimburse them for at least half their premiums.

Obamacare ... made that illegal. So now my employees get no tax break for their plans. Before Obamacare they did. Obamacare, taking the affordable out of healthcare...

 

[SmedlyButler]

That whole POS bill is illegal in my estimation.

No way should we taxpayers have to subsidize anyone.

If you can't afford to take care of yourself then tough fucking shit.

I would take issue with this to a point. There are many who are born with debilitating illnesses or mental problems and I have no problem with them being on the taxpayer dime.
Able bodied Americans and foreigners can go jump in the lake tho

any more than you do. In the work environment I fired a few of their lazy asses. We probably would disagree on the details but I can go along with your post as written.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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!

what about catastrophic/major medical health insurance.....? sold like auto insurance...

 

[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.



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...

No I didn't Obama apologist. What would be premature ejaculate is YOU wanting the Filmmaker who your messiah blamed for Benghazi, TO DIE without a trial, without evidence.. THATS WHAT YOU SAID, WANTED.. LMAO

 

[paperview]

Oh, this is delish!

An Obama-appointed judge swiped challengers of Obamacare subsidies in an opinion Tuesday upholding subsidies via the federal exchange. The lawsuit charged that the statute confines the subsidies to state-run exchanges.

Obama Judge Trolls Obamacare Opponents With Cheeky Pizza Analogy

Judge Andre M. Davis, sought to take down the challengers' claims with an amusing pizza analogy.


Here's the excerpt from his opinion in the 3-0 ruling for the law:

In fact, Appellants’ reading is not literal; it’s cramped. No case stands for the proposition that literal readings should take place in a vacuum, acontextually, and untethered from other parts of the operative text; indeed, the case law indicates the opposite. ... So does common sense: If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order.

That is this case: Congress specified that Exchanges should be established and run by the states, but the contingency provision permits federal officials to act in place of the state when it fails to establish an Exchange.​

 

[saveliberty]

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

No such thing as a Republican or Democrat judge in an Appellate Court. It was not misread, as the federal government cannot fund some states while ignoring others. The article claims a typo, then immediately falls back to a read in context defense. Wrong all day.

 

[Jarhead]

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!

what about catastrophic/major medical health insurance.....? sold like auto insurance...

Tat is what it used to be. Thus why they called it "insurance"......

 

[bendog]

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.

I did not misread your post. You posted that you negotiated down to the least amount the ER would take and NOT down the exact cost the ER incurred in treating your relative.

You are a cheapskate because you approve of your relative's free loading ways.

Now if he could not afford insurance, that would be one thing. But your post was that he eschewed subsidized insurance because he perceived a financial advantage in freeloading.

And coincidentally, that was one of my primary fears about Obamacare. It is no doubt cheaper for younger workers to pay the penalty that to enroll. And there's nothing wrong with that. People act in their self-interest. However, the law should have been written so as to make it very expensive to not get insurance until you are sick. And, ER's should be not allowed to settle for less than full dollar. The law does not penalize people who take advantage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Folks who want to privatize their cost of their health care while socializing the risk are not conservatives. They are only saying they are conservative while they game the system.

 

[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.

You are 100% wrong.

Educate yourself.

Cyas.

Doubling down huh? You are wrong and too small a person to admit it.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

I did not misread your post. You posted that you negotiated down to the least amount the ER would take and NOT down the exact cost the ER incurred in treating your relative.

You are a cheapskate because you approve of your relative's free loading ways.

Now if he could not afford insurance, that would be one thing. But your post was that he eschewed subsidized insurance because he perceived a financial advantage in freeloading.

And coincidentally, that was one of my primary fears about Obamacare. It is no doubt cheaper for younger workers to pay the penalty that to enroll. And there's nothing wrong with that. People act in their self-interest. However, the law should have been written so as to make it very expensive to not get insurance until you are sick. And, ER's should be not allowed to settle for less than full dollar. The law does not penalize people who take advantage.

And I corrected you and said that I never said that "I" negotiated it.

I wasn't even there when the bill arrived. I was the one who took him to the ER and it wasn't until that day that I found out he didn't have insurance. But when the bill arrived, he did whatever he had to.

It wasn't until recently, when he had to deal with "life with insurance" that he told me about how he negotiated his ER bill down to nearly nothing...and I explained to him that he will not be able to do the same now that he has insurance. It is a different world.

But I didn't care when the ER allowed the less fortunate to pay less and get the rest form the tax payer. They aren't free loaders. They are poor.....and food and shelter comes before insurance.

But again...I do not condone an able bodied worker NOT working by choice and getting free anything.....and I certainly did not support my brother doing what he did.

 

[Ibentoken]

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.



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...

The USSC could let it stand. They don't have to hear it.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

its not free...that is misleading

 

[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.

You are 100% wrong.

Educate yourself.

Cyas.

Doubling down huh? You are wrong and too small a person to admit it.

Last time I will post this....


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?


Yes, premium increases contribute....BUT MOST OF THE BURDEN FALLS ON THE TAXPAYER VIA THE GOVERNMENT......

So what were you saying about being too small to admit you are wrong?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The USSC will allow the full appellate court to overturn it 10-3 or 11-2

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Oh, this is delish!

An Obama-appointed judge swiped challengers of Obamacare subsidies in an opinion Tuesday upholding subsidies via the federal exchange. The lawsuit charged that the statute confines the subsidies to state-run exchanges.

Obama Judge Trolls Obamacare Opponents With Cheeky Pizza Analogy

Judge Andre M. Davis, sought to take down the challengers' claims with an amusing pizza analogy.


Here's the excerpt from his opinion in the 3-0 ruling for the law:

In fact, Appellants’ reading is not literal; it’s cramped. No case stands for the proposition that literal readings should take place in a vacuum, acontextually, and untethered from other parts of the operative text; indeed, the case law indicates the opposite. ... So does common sense: If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order.

That is this case: Congress specified that Exchanges should be established and run by the states, but the contingency provision permits federal officials to act in place of the state when it fails to establish an Exchange.​

i don't know which is worse....Pizza Hut or Dominos....but here's an analogy for ya...

if government gets its way you can be sure your healthcare will become like a frozen cardboard pizza from the local gas station....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

what do you think the implications of such a decision are, lgs? do you think the people of a state that refused to set up a healthcare exchange will be made at the obama administration for this decision, or mad at their state government?

how do you see this ending?

Nevada set up an exchange, so did Oregon. Neither exchange exists today. Why the fuck should people in those states blame the states instead of the feds?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

its not free...that is misleading

Based on your logic...there is nothing in this world that is man made that is free.

But when I debate, I assume the person I am debating with will not play semantics in an effort to prove I am wrong.

For debate purposes in this thread, when you hear that something is free....it means it is free to the consumer who gets it without having to pay for it.

OK?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So all those voters in all those red states whose Republican governments have not set up state exchanges will not be eligible for the subsidies.

That should please those voters immensely.

Nor are the voters of those states eligible for the Medicaid expansion.



The issue ads write themselves.


Of course, this subsidy problem is very easily fixed. All Congress has to do is amend the ACA to allow subsidies through the federal exchange.


The ball is now in the Republican House's court.


Hmmmm...what will they do? What will they do...

You might have a point, f you knew how to think logically. As it is, all you just proved is that you think people are all selfish assholes.

 

[g5000]

Before ObamaCare, the cost of ER care for the poor that was picked up by taxpayers was about $52 billion a year.

That's out of somewhere around $2.5 trillion total spent on health care in the US.