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

[NYcarbineer]

Have the death panels started yet?

No. Trig is still alive.

 

[Care4all]

.

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.

gawd...sheesh..you are so full of it tonight QW

the contract for the insurance policies could not be kept....not after the federal gvt refuses to pay their portion of it, as agreed with the insurance companies..the federal gvt will bankrupt them, by not paying the first 7 months gone by already....an then it will hit all the hospitals in the state, then EVERYBODIES insurance prices go up to pay for it.........

and OF COURSE YOU KNOW most all of the people getting subsidies can not afford to pay for the full cost of Insurance....so you are once again leaving these poor people with nothing...

Lord, let the first death be on your soul, AMEN!

 

[NYcarbineer]

hard to imagine so many people want so many people to go without health insurance just because they don't like the POTUS ... the SC has already ruled for Healthcare, I can't see them taking it away from 4 million people.

You do know there are more than 300 million people in this country, right?

Yes, fuckwit, and only a very small percentage of them are using the exchanges.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

It's why Obama care had SO MANY PROBLEMS in it's start up,

those contracts and amounts per individuals were not being transmitted corrected to the insurers and the insurers would not go forward without having the money agreed settled.

Wrong. The reason Obamacare had so many problems is that it is run by the government.

By the way, the problems you are talking about, which includes, but is not limited to, the fact that the government couldn't verify information about people signing up, that they couldn't pass that information onto the insurers, and that they utterly failed at building a website with a 4 year lead time that any tech firm could churn out over a long weekend. None of that is proof that the government signed contracts with the insurers, all it is is proof that you don't understand the system.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

.

That might be testament to the quality of your powers of impersonation.

 

[g5000]

hard to imagine so many people want so many people to go without health insurance just because they don't like the POTUS ... the SC has already ruled for Healthcare, I can't see them taking it away from 4 million people.

You do know there are more than 300 million people in this country, right?

Yes, fuckwit, and only a very small percentage of them are using the exchanges.

At this time.

 

[Siete]

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.

Why did Obama delay the employee mandate of the law isn't going to screw you over? Is it so he could keep lying to you, and you could pretend he isn't?

funny, the Business sector isn't griping about it are they ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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!

Except they didn't. What was to be offered on the exchange was unilaterally dictated by the government, and not a single insurance company was required to sign a contract in order to participate in said exchange. All they had to do was comply with the regulations.

And?

Are they making $$$$?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the interests of justice were applied here, and nothing else,

the courts should uphold the law because in order to justify overturning this portion of it one would have to believe with reasonable certainty that the Congress that passed this law intended the subsidies to ONLY be available to residents of states that set up exchanges,

and, conversely, that Congress intended the subsidies to be unavailable to residents of the other states.

That is not a conclusion that one can reasonably reach.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You do know there are more than 300 million people in this country, right?

Yes, fuckwit, and only a very small percentage of them are using the exchanges.

At this time.

Well, conservatives would like to see veterans out the VA system and instead using the Obamacare exchanges,

so there's another big group that might be there soon.

 

[Care4all]

if the interests of justice were applied here, and nothing else,

the courts should uphold the law because in order to justify overturning this portion of it one would have to believe with reasonable certainty that the congress that passed this law intended the subsidies to only be available to residents of states that set up exchanges,

and, conversely, that congress intended the subsidies to be unavailable to residents of the other states.

That is not a conclusion that one can reasonably reach.

bingo!

 

[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?

In two rulings, 4 judges have ruled for it, 2 against it. Would you like to try to change that fact?

If it really worked that way the mandate would have lost because more judges ruled against it than for it.

Care to revise your stupid argument?

By the way, the Fourth Circuit actually ignored precedent in its ruling today. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that courts do not have the authority to rewrite laws simply because Congress screwed them up. Those decisions have been unanimous, by the way.

 

[bendog]

if the interests of justice were applied here, and nothing else,

the courts should uphold the law because in order to justify overturning this portion of it one would have to believe with reasonable certainty that the congress that passed this law intended the subsidies to only be available to residents of states that set up exchanges,

and, conversely, that congress intended the subsidies to be unavailable to residents of the other states.

That is not a conclusion that one can reasonably reach.

bingo!

Wouldn't it be delightful if the Sup Ct had to opine ...." yeah we caused this."? LOL

 

[rightwinger]

What difference does it make if citizens in Red States do not get subsidies or expanded Medicare? They don't want it anyway

Let them pay more than citizens in blue states

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How, exactly, did the Republicans obstruct Obamacare?

Hmmmm.... Just spit balling here ......
ummm .... by filing lawsuits to block it?????

Are you seriously unaware of that?
and you are going to try to insult people who actually know about that?

Look, I'm not a big fan of Obamacare - but let's keep this real.

Maybe you should look up the word obstruct.

I am a fan of truth, so feel free to describe how those lawsuits actually prevented anything, especially considering that the courts actually upheld the law.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[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.

never happen ever..like since the dawn of government this has never happened.
what an ignorant thing for you to say.

You think the system sucks, but it is the only one you know, so you blindly defend it.

Go ahead, call me stupid again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the right wing succeeds in killing the ACA, do you believe Americans will be happy to return to things the way they were PRIOR to the act's passage? I.e., no coverage of prior conditions, no coverage of adult children living at home, no full coverage of preventative medicine, etc? As I understand it, most people are in favor of most of ACA's policies . . . they just don't like "Obamacare."

(A majority of polled Americans support the ACA, but oppose Obamacare . . . oh, the power of the Corporate Mainstream Media . . .)

Freedom sometimes makes people unhappy, such is life.

 

[boedicca]

if the interests of justice were applied here, and nothing else,

the courts should uphold the law because in order to justify overturning this portion of it one would have to believe with reasonable certainty that the congress that passed this law intended the subsidies to only be available to residents of states that set up exchanges,

and, conversely, that congress intended the subsidies to be unavailable to residents of the other states.

That is not a conclusion that one can reasonably reach.

bingo!

So, all they need to do is look at the language of the law.

It is not for the courts to second guess that Congress actually meant to do something different than what was written into law.

If Congress wants to change the law to include subsidies for Federal Exchanges, they can certainly go ahead and pass an amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Another mathematically challenged liberal that couldn't do a basic cost-benefit analysis if their lives depended on it. Imagine that.

How anyone can not see how this actually COSTS more for everyone and results in worse quality care boggles my mind. And by cost to everyone, I'm talking about those that have been paying for "others" all along.

Everyone could get healthcare before this dumbass Socialist push for government control of it. They went to clinics and the ER if they were indigent. Or private charities. If someone REALLY needed it, they got it.

Was it more expensive for the ER, yes, but there are other ways to mitigate weaknesses in the system without upending the whole thing.

But people need to stop the flat out lie that poor people can't get care unless it's a Socialist program.

well the whole idea is that you have more people in the pool so they dont have to go to the er, thus driving down costs because now the Hospitals dont have to cover the cost of helping those people basically for freem til they get paid off by other means.

The issue is a tad more larger than " poor people get sick and need help"

But hey why be honest.

What, precisely, prevents people from going to the ER? Is there a magic wand somewhere, or do you think people are all as stupid as you are?

By the way, I have a whole list of things that my doctor says would necessitate an ER visit. I don't have the option of waiting for an appointment to see a doctor. I realize I am the exception to the rule, but I can state categorically that I have been to the ER more since I got Obamacare than I have in my entire life before it. I even know the best ER rooms, which makes me really upset.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

This applies only to Washington D.C. - dummy.

Wrong.