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

[NYcarbineer]

That court did not rule against the constitutionality of the subsidies. They ruled against the wording in the bill.

 

[bendog]

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.

I did misread that you did not approve. I apologize.

 

[g5000]

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.

Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay for it. Or borrow the money from China.

You're damn straight we are a nation of selfish assholes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.​

His point might actually stand scrutiny if HHS hadn't just adopted a literal definition of state to exempt US Territories from Obamacare.

HHS suddenly finds ObamaCare exemptions for territories « Hot Air

In other words, the government must now argue in court that state means state so that it can exempt some people, but that it doesn't when it comes to other people.

They haven't got a chance in hell of winning that one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You just admitted you are not a conservative.

 

[bendog]

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.

Gimme, gimme, gimme. And make that guy over there pay for it. Or borrow the money from China.

You're damn straight we are a nation of selfish assholes.

Well originally we didn't want to pay for the French and Indian (if I may still use that word) War.

With Obamacare we didn't really fundamentally reform the market for healthcare for non-disabled non-seniors. I'm not convinced we actually get our money's worth from medicare, but then again I'm not sure we can expect people with dementia, and the disabled, to make informed economic decisions.

That's no excuse though for not really taking on the market for the rest of us.

 

[Nyvin]

No one seems to be mentioning the other 2 appeals courts that voted in favor of Obamacare.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

If we were told..

The ACA simply says that 52 billion a year will be taken out of the treasury coffers to cover those that need healthcare but cant afford it......

I would have supported it.

Now?

More will likely be spent, I have a mandate on me, the government is controlling it, the IRS is involved....and I am being told what I need to cover for myself and my wife.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Let me guess, you somehow think that expanding Medicaid somehow means taxpayers aren't paying now, right?

 

[Jarhead]

No one seems to be mentioning the other 2 appeals courts that voted in favor of Obamacare.

then I assume you have not read through this thread at all. It has been mentioned over a dozen times.

 

[Avatar4321]

Sounds like a number of decisions. I'd love to read them if I get a chance to. unfortunately, I am doing some research on DUIs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That court did not rule against the constitutionality of the subsidies. They ruled against the wording in the bill.

Doesn't change the fact that they ruled that the federal government cannot pay subsidies to people who bought insurance through the federal exchange, does it?

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no point jumping to conclusions about the death of Obamacare. As much as we would all be blessed by this monstrosity ending, we will probably have to abolish it through legislation than rely on the courts.

All the more reason to vote.

 

[Mac1958]

.

So is this really what Republicans want, 4 to 5 million people losing their health insurance?

With the mid-terms coming up, and the 2016 campaign commencing right after that?

I'm no fan of the ACA, but that ship had sailed.

.

 

[Jarhead]

There is no point jumping to conclusions about the death of Obamacare. As much as we would all be blessed by this monstrosity ending, we will probably have to abolish it through legislation than rely on the courts.

All the more reason to vote.

I always believed that once it was implemented, it will be impossible to abolish it.

I think we need to spend more time fine tuning it now, than trying to abolish it.

We can not have chaos when it comes to healthcare. Sick people can not wait for the dust to settle befoire healing.

 

[Care4all]

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...

Off hand, I don't know? Let's talk and think this through...

ok, if memory serves me, with auto insurance, you buy it in your State...the Insurance company has to be licensed within your State and follow all the rules and regs your State has set up on things like minimum liability insurance needed for auto's, for trucks, for business vehicles by employees, for commercial trucks, for Leased vehicles etc etc etc....and a ton of other rules the States themselves have set up.

when you drive your car in to another State and have an accident, your insurance pays for your car to be fixed under the conditions of your policy, and if you have collision, your insurance pays the other guy's car fixing IF YOU are at fault....some States have no fault insurance though, not certain if it is all states?

Regardless, with health insurance, you are not driving in to another State and 'having an accident' there or using the hospitals and regular doctors there....you are using the doctors and hospitals in the State you live in, WHICH MEANS that the Health Insurance company would have to set up office in that State, in other words, get licensed in that State to operate within the health care system and hospitals within that State....

And the way Insurance plans work, they have to set up and negotiate a network of doctors and hospitals to negotiate prices on....if only 100-1000 people from my state spread all over the State want to go to the doctor near their house, how can this insurance company from out of State, negotiate GOOD PRICES for the plan, without having the numbers in customer policies to do it? sounds like insurance would cost more if you bought it from an out of State company that did not have a network within the State....


it's just not the same as an auto insurance plan....

And when I lived in Massachusetts, due to their Insurance regulations, nationwide insurance companies refused to do business in the State due to all of the State regs to follow to be licensed, I could not get GEICO, and All State or Nationwide if memory serves....and a few others....Same here in Maine...lots of regs and most Health Care Insurers won't operate within my State because the people are spread out, and we have a low population in the whole State, and these Insurance companies can not negotiate good prices with the Hospitals within our State due to the lack of numbers with citizens...so they just pass and don't even operate here...

I'm not certain Insurance companies would truly be jumping in on selling Insurance in States that they don't already practice in...

So to change this....some how the Federal Government would have to say the Fed usurps STate Regulatory and deem them dead and void....then what else will the Fed deam null and void in the States to take even more power? Nothing would be stopping them, imo.

It'll probably end up in the courts for years....

 

[Jarhead]

.

So is this really what Republicans want, 4 to 5 million people losing their health insurance?

With the mid-terms coming up, and the 2016 campaign commencing right after that?

I'm no fan of the ACA, but that ship had sailed.

.

Yes, it has sailed.

I just wish congress knew what they were voting for before they voted for it.

And I wish the President knew what was in it before he signed it into law.

 

[g5000]

.

So is this really what Republicans want, 4 to 5 million people losing their health insurance?

With the mid-terms coming up, and the 2016 campaign commencing right after that?

I'm no fan of the ACA, but that ship had sailed.

.

Yes, it has sailed.

I just wish congress knew what they were voting for before they voted for it.

And I wish the President knew what was in it before he signed it into law.

As far as the subsidies go, both Congress and Obama knew what was in the law. They could not have known ahead of time the Court would throw a monkey wrench into the works by allowing states to opt out of the state exchanges, which then led to this latest challenge over those subsidies.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

And the rest picked up by healthcare consumers and insurance companies.

Like I said .....

 

[g5000]

The GOP is making both strategic and tactical errors. I already mentioned the grievous error of trying to make ObamaCare fail catastrophically that will lead to the people crying out for single payer.

Now think about what would happen if it is ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court that people who get their insurance through the federal exchange are not entitled to the subsidies.

This would mean insurance will be much higher for people who primarily live in red states.

The whole GOP meme that ObamaCare drives up the cost of insurance is going to be destroyed. People aren't going to blame ObamaCare for their higher insurance costs. They are going to blame their Republican politicians who stopped them from getting subsidies.