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

[g5000]

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?

That is a separate issue. However, with respect to his claim that "if you like your insurance, you can keep it, period" I have often said that when politicians say something that is completely untrue, then it comes down to one question. Are they stupid...or evil?

When Obama made that claim, he either did not know he was wrong, or he was willfully lying. Stupid, or evil. We have no way of knowing which it was.


But that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

 

[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?

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?

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

The government did not sign any contracts, they wrote a law dictating what insurance companies have to do. If that law is flawed, which it is, the government has to deal with the consequences of making a stupid law.

 

[Lakhota]

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?

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

The government did not sign any contracts, they wrote a law dictating what insurance companies have to do. If that law is flawed, which it is, the government has to deal with the consequences of making a stupid law.

I doubt she is confused.

 

[g5000]

People are behaving as if the ACA is the first law in America that ever needed amendments and patches after it was passed!

 

[Jarhead]

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?

That is a separate issue. However, with respect to his claim that "if you like your insurance, you can keep it, period" I have often said that when politicians say something that is completely untrue, then it comes down to one question. Are they stupid...or evil?

When Obama made that claim, he either did not know he was wrong, or he was willfully lying. We have no way of knowing which it was.


But that has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

it has to do with signing a law without knowing what was in it.

As for when he said it....

Most don't realize this....

He was NEGATING those that DID read it and told everyone that they will not be able to keep their policies...it was during the campaign.

So why didn't he have his staff research it to ensure that they will NOT lose their policies before he said (paraphrased)...

"those evil republicans are lying to you. You WILL get to keep your policies"

But lets be real......the man knew.

 

[bendog]

Look, some portion of unisurds' ER bills, that are negotiated down to actual below cost to the ER for the treatment, are passed on to other consumers via inflated bills to insurance companies. That's not a debatable point. However, it's also true the feds do pay some to the states for uninsured visits, as you said. It's also true, however, that the feds decreased this amount with the ACA, reasoning there are less uninsurds. That's a problem for hospitals in my state, where the governor chose not to expand Medicaid.

NEVERTHELESS, it's also not debatable that insurance companies also negotiate the price downwards.

I'm sorry its personal.

But the entire sorry subthread does illustrate a pre-ACA problem that the ACA did nothing about. There's no way to find out what something's gonna cost before you buy it. That's a crazy market there. Unless you fix that, you aren't gonna fix it at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

The government did not sign any contracts, they wrote a law dictating what insurance companies have to do. If that law is flawed, which it is, the government has to deal with the consequences of making a stupid law.

I doubt she is confused.

Is that because you can't think, or because I have managed to out argue you every single time we had a discussion? It helps when you use facts, like the fact that the government did not sign contracts with all the insurance companies in every single state, like Care tried to argue.

And, frankly, being an advocate of free markets, I could care less if the government bankrupted every insurance company in existence because it would make my point that you can't trust the fucking government to do anything right.

 

[Jarhead]

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?

Huh?

The government signed contracts with insurance companies?

Are you sure?

Who signed them? Who represents the government when it comes to signing a contract like that? Uncle Sam?

I think you may be wrong Care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People are behaving as if the ACA is the first law in America that ever needed amendments and patches after it was passed!

No we are not, you are the one defending stupidity, the rest of us want to get things working the way they should, AKA get the government out of the economy.

 

[Lakhota]

People are behaving as if the ACA is the first law in America that ever needed amendments and patches after it was passed!

No we are not, you are the one defending stupidity, the rest of us want to get things working the way they should, AKA get the government out of the economy.

Why didn't any Republicans participate to help make the Affordable Care Act better - instead of obstructing?

 

[saveliberty]

It only follows that if we need to take this law in total for reasons of intent, we should also remove all the parts which are clearly contradictions.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

Yep, rather they like it or not. The poor won't put up with what the Barons did in the early 20th century today. Not for a second!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People are behaving as if the ACA is the first law in America that ever needed amendments and patches after it was passed!

No we are not, you are the one defending stupidity, the rest of us want to get things working the way they should, AKA get the government out of the economy.

Why didn't any Republicans participate to help make the Affordable Care Act better - instead of obstructing?

How, exactly, did the Republicans obstruct Obamacare? I mean, it is actually the law, so any claim they obstructed it must be based on the delusion that Republicans could have actually stopped it. Yet the evidence proves it was not stopped, thus the Republicans did not obstruct it.

See what I mean about facts and why you will always lose when using lies to support your position? When are you going to learn that lies do not trump facts?

 

[Jarhead]

People are behaving as if the ACA is the first law in America that ever needed amendments and patches after it was passed!

No we are not, you are the one defending stupidity, the rest of us want to get things working the way they should, AKA get the government out of the economy.

Not to mention it is a law that covers 1/6 of the economy, was passed in a NON bipartisan manner; was passed using a very rarely used, BUT LEGAL political tactic; was misrepresented to the people as it pertained to being able to keep your policy, has been delayed by the executive order numerous times and multiple items deemed inappropriate by the courts.

No, it is not the first one that ever needed amendments....

But when you add it all together?

It likely meets many "firsts"

 

[saveliberty]

People are behaving as if the ACA is the first law in America that ever needed amendments and patches after it was passed!

No we are not, you are the one defending stupidity, the rest of us want to get things working the way they should, AKA get the government out of the economy.

Why didn't any Republicans participate to help make the Affordable Care Act better - instead of obstructing?

Because government doesn't belong in the health insurance business as a broker. It didn't create an affordable product that has realistic copays without subsidies. In no way does it control costs. Basically it fails on its three primary missions.

 

[Jarhead]

No we are not, you are the one defending stupidity, the rest of us want to get things working the way they should, AKA get the government out of the economy.

Why didn't any Republicans participate to help make the Affordable Care Act better - instead of obstructing?

How, exactly, did the Republicans obstruct Obamacare? I mean, it is actually the law, so any claim they obstructed it must be based on the delusion that Republicans could have actually stopped it. Yet the evidence proves it was not stopped, thus the Republicans did not obstruct it.

See what I mean about facts and why you will always lose when using lies to support your position? When are you going to learn that lies do not trump facts?

your problem is you read Lakotahs posts.

They are filled with spin, hyperbole, rhetoric, hate and assumption. Very little fact.

 

[Care4all]

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?

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

The government did not sign any contracts, they wrote a law dictating what insurance companies have to do. If that law is flawed, which it is, the government has to deal with the consequences of making a stupid law.

I doubt she is confused.

Bull crap. ( Not you Lakhota!) but Windbag

Yes they did sign contracts for each and every person on the exchange buying insurance that was getting subsidies....the Insurance companies got the gvt contract of what amount of the individual's premium the government would pay and be responsible for, and what amount the policy holder would be responsible for....without it, the Insurance companies would not proceed forward with covering a health care policy with the individuals on the exchange.

signed sealed and delivered, baby!

 

[ScienceRocks]

So the tea parties plan is to go back to making the hospitals pay for the care as most of the patients don't need to pay. The tea party is a short sighted bunch of slow thinkers!

 

[Jarhead]

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

The government did not sign any contracts, they wrote a law dictating what insurance companies have to do. If that law is flawed, which it is, the government has to deal with the consequences of making a stupid law.

I doubt she is confused.

Bull crap. ( Not you Lakhota!) but Windbag

Yes they did sign contracts for each and every person on the exchange buying insurance that was getting subsidies....the Insurance companies got the gvt contract of what amount of the individual's premium the government would pay and be responsible for, and what amount the policy holder would be responsible for....without it, the Insurance companies would not proceed forward with covering a health care policy with the individuals on the exchange.

signed sealed and delivered, baby!

Contracts?

Really?

I doubt it care. But I will research it.

But I don't think so Care.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This thread needs more personal anecdotes. I miss them. We used to have so many.

Four years after the passage of the insufficient ACA....and I have yet experience A SINGLE PROBLEM regarding my family's health insurance. In fact....I saved some dough on yearly physicals.

If you are gainfully employed in a job that pays a living wage.....and you are a bootstrap-pulling, personally responsible American....this law didn't fuck you over in any way.

You bitches whining about paying for someone else's health care are TOO STUPID to realize that this law saves you money.

Come on, USMB nutters......bring those horror stories back.