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

[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.

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.

Obama is a constitutional attorney.

If he knew what was in the bill, he would have ensured the wording was appropriate.
He would have known that people would have been dropped.
He would have known to call the "penalty" a tax like the SCOTUS said it was.

He signed a bill without actually knowing what was in it.

 

[g5000]

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.

Obama is a constitutional attorney.

If he knew what was in the bill, he would have ensured the wording was appropriate.
He would have known that people would have been dropped.
He would have known to call the "penalty" a tax like the SCOTUS said it was.

He signed a bill without actually knowing what was in it.

We have had a lot of Presidents who were lawyers who have lost battles in the Supreme Court.

Obama knew the subsidies were in it. He did not know, and could not have known, the Supremes would decide to allow the states to opt out.

Nevertheless, if and when the Supremes decide that subsidies are legal for the federal exchange, are you going to change your tune and admit he DID know what was in it?

Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[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.

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

Like I said .....

LMAO...

sure you did. You said "the REST is picked up by the consumers....."
That's what you said....,....The REST is.....
Sure you did......

Loser.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Obama is a constitutional attorney.

If he knew what was in the bill, he would have ensured the wording was appropriate.
He would have known that people would have been dropped.
He would have known to call the "penalty" a tax like the SCOTUS said it was.

He signed a bill without actually knowing what was in it.

We have had a lot of Presidents who were lawyers who have lost battles in the Supreme Court.

Obama knew the subsidies were in it. He did not know, and could not have known, the Supremes would decide to allow the states to opt out.

Because he is a CONSTITUTIONAL attorney.....

And how come he had no idea people would lose their insurance policies?

 

[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 .....

LMAO...

sure you did. You said "the REST is picked up by the consumers....."
That's what you said....,....The REST is.....
Sure you did......

Loser.

So that's what ya got?????

"loser"

After what I said was verified 100%.

grow up kid.

 

[Care4all]

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?

the federal gvt signed contracts with insurance companies in 50 states on the federal and state exchanges, agreeing to subsidize, each individual policy differing, but huge amounts....

those policy holders on obamacare sure as heck will not be able to pay the bill, or be held accountable for more than the monthly premium amount they agreed to with the insurance company for the months they used the insurance....

so is the federal government going to bankrupt the insurance companies in one sweep by not having to pay up on their contract? really?

 

[ScienceRocks]

So the poor takes it up the ass once again.

Robber Barons don't ever quit!

 

[Freewill]

.

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.

.

I see that you have taken the default left wing position that this case going to COURT is something the Republican have a say in.

 

[Lakhota]

Judge Harry Edwards Issues Blistering Dissent Slamming 'Nonsense' Obamacare Decision

In a crippling blow to President Barack Obama's signature health care law on Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans purchased by consumers in 36 states operating federal insurance marketplaces.

The 2-1 ruling by the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit would affect almost 5 million Americans without employer-provided health plans who are receiving tax credits to pay their premiums for health coverage under a federal exchange.

Writing the court's majority opinion, Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of former President George W. Bush (R), argued that the law’s insurance subsidies apply only to states that have created their own exchanges, thereby invalidating an IRS regulation permitting nationwide subsidies.

But Senior Judge Harry T. Edwards, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter (D), sharply disagreed with the conservatives on the court.

"This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," Edwards wrote in his dissent Tuesday. "This claim is nonsense, made up out of whole cloth. There is no credible evidence in the record that Congress intended to condition subsidies on whether a State, as opposed to HHS, established the Exchange."

Edwards' full opinion:

MORE: Judge Harry Edwards Issues Blistering Dissent Slamming 'Nonsense' Obamacare Decision

Well, there was at least one sane judge who doesn't hate people without healthcare.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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

Like I said .....

LMAO...

sure you did. You said "the REST is picked up by the consumers....."
That's what you said....,....The REST is.....
Sure you did......

Loser.

So that's what ya got?????

"loser"

After what I said was verified 100%.

grow up kid.

That's the entire tea party's argument.

 

[bendog]

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.

yeah. I don't see Roberts sticking the knife in the gop over this, but to say the law isn't literal means courts have to say its intent is other than its literal reading. And, as you noted, it's ironic that he actually created the issue by allowing states to opt out and keep the pre-ACA Medicaid dollars. It's a bad law, but that decision didn't make it less so.

 

[Lakhota]

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.

Yeah, just let those people go to the Emergency Room - which other people end up paying for. At least Obamacare allows poor people some measure of dignity.

 

[Jarhead]

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

Like I said .....

LMAO...

sure you did. You said "the REST is picked up by the consumers....."
That's what you said....,....The REST is.....
Sure you did......

Loser.

So that's what ya got?????

"loser"

After what I said was verified 100%.

grow up kid.

You have been proven wrong by multiple people in this thread.

I refer to you as a loser because you ignored the evidence that you were wrong...waited for a few pages of posts...and then restated what you said by adding in the words "the rest of it"....and claiming that is what you said all along.

That makes you a loser in my book....unwilling to admit it when you learned something new.

And you called me a child?

Wow.

 

[Freewill]

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.

This issues is going through the courts not the RNC.

What needs explained to people is that this is a poorly constructed law in spite of the reams of paper it is printed on. They must also be made aware that this does nothing to the cost of health care. It is just a matter of who pays. Of course those getting subsidizes won't like having to pay but that is the law. So what are you suggesting? That the law be ignored?

 

[Jarhead]

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.

yeah. I don't see Roberts sticking the knife in the gop over this, but to say the law isn't literal means courts have to say its intent is other than its literal reading. And, as you noted, it's ironic that he actually created the issue by allowing states to opt out and keep the pre-ACA Medicaid dollars. It's a bad law, but that decision didn't make it less so.

These rulings are irrelevant.

The law needs to be fine tuned...big time. Congress needs to take these rulings, fix the wording and lets move on.

We have the middle east about to explode...the Soviet union about to be reborn....nukes in the hands of irresponsible nations with grandiose ideas of world dominance....and sink holes swallowing up the worlds retirement state.

Enough with semantics and the ACA.

Move the fuck on already.

 

[nodoginnafight]

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.

Yeah, just let those people go to the Emergency Room - which other people end up paying for. At least Obamacare allows poor people some measure of dignity.

I believe that those who can afford to contribute to their own healthcare should contribute to their own healthcare.

and "tough fucking shit" isn't going to win any elections.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

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.

.

They won't lose anything but the subsidies that are illegal, they can still keep the wonderfully affordable insurance they get through the exchanges.

By the way, the Titanic sailed, then sank. There is no reason we can't sink Obamacare just because the ship left port.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Obama is a constitutional attorney.

If he knew what was in the bill, he would have ensured the wording was appropriate.
He would have known that people would have been dropped.
He would have known to call the "penalty" a tax like the SCOTUS said it was.

He signed a bill without actually knowing what was in it.

We have had a lot of Presidents who were lawyers who have lost battles in the Supreme Court.

Obama knew the subsidies were in it. He did not know, and could not have known, the Supremes would decide to allow the states to opt out.

Nevertheless, if and when the Supremes decide that subsidies are legal for the federal exchange, are you going to change your tune and admit he DID know what was in it?

Somehow, I doubt it.

The opt out was written into the law itself, nothing SCOTUS said changed that. The problem was that the idiots who wrote the law didn't think everything through, not that SCOTUS allowed states to opt out.

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court doesn't interpret laws, it applies the Constitution. If it is a matter of interpretation, they return the case to a lower court with instructions.

 

[paperview]

.

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.

.

I see that you have taken the default left wing position that this case going to COURT is something the Republican have a say in.

Well, sorta....

Who the eff do you think brought the case to the courts in the first place?

DAVID KING; DOUGLAS HURST; BRENDA LEVY; ROSE LUCK, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SYLVIA MATTHEWS BURWELL, in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; JACOB LEW, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; JOHN KOSKINEN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Defendants – Appellees,

-----------------------------SENATOR JOHN CORNYN; SENATOR TED CRUZ; SENATOR ORRIN HATCH; SENATOR MIKE LEE; SENATOR ROB PORTMAN; SENATOR MARCO RUBIO; CONGRESSMAN DARRELL ISSA; PACIFIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE; THE CATO INSTITUTE; THE AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS UNION; JONATHAN H. ADLER; MICHAEL F. CANNON; STATE OF OKLAHOMA; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF GEORGIA; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; STATE OF NEBRASKA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CONSUMERS’ RESEARCH; STATE OF KANSAS; THE GALEN INSTITUTE, Amici Supporting Appellants