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

[Nyvin]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

The way the law is written, it is illegal to give subsidies in states that have no exchanges.

That means this is another part of the law that Obama and the Dems will seek to ignore.

First, they'll bitch about the judges who uphold the law, then they'll just do what they always do. Pick and choose which laws to obey and pretend that Obama is a dictator who can change things with a wave of his pen.

It's a play on words...it's taking advantage of what's basically a typo. It's pathetic.

 

[Lakhota]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Salivate while you can, NaziCons. I have no doubt that Obamacare will prevail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right who don't get it are the weirdos in America and in God's kingdom.

The law is not illegal, simply needs a fix, which it will get.

 

[Kosh]

So the law says one thing and the far left believes it to be something else, go figure that one.

And how does a court know what the "intensions" of a law are when hardly any one on the far left bothers to read it?

 

[Nyvin]

So the law says one thing and the far left believes it to be something else, go figure that one.

And how does a court know what the "intensions" of a law are when hardly any one on the far left bothers to read it?

No one once ever suggested that only state exchanges would be allowed to give subsidies. It's a fluke wording in the law that's obviously not intentional.

If it wasn't intended to give subsidies on the federal exchange then the law was written to not work. Considering subsidies are a cornerstone of the entire law.

 

[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.

So, in order to be just, they have to ignore what the law says and go with what you believe.

Makes sense, until you consider the fact that the same rule could apply to other things. Imagine a Republican court ignoring the law that says that equal rights belong to everyone and going with what they believe, that justice demands that they restrict the rights of people who don't agree with the Republican agenda. My guess is that you would find that outrageous, even though it fits nicely into your definition of justice.

People need to learn to think before you post.

To all the people that know NYcarbineer, the last comment was made to teach other people to think, we all know he will never do so.

I recommend you research the legal term 'legislative intent'.

And then, of course, come back and pretend that it isn't relevant or applicable.

 

[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.

So, in order to be just, they have to ignore what the law says and go with what you believe.

Makes sense, until you consider the fact that the same rule could apply to other things. Imagine a Republican court ignoring the law that says that equal rights belong to everyone and going with what they believe, that justice demands that they restrict the rights of people who don't agree with the Republican agenda. My guess is that you would find that outrageous, even though it fits nicely into your definition of justice.

People need to learn to think before you post.

To all the people that know NYcarbineer, the last comment was made to teach other people to think, we all know he will never do so.

We can either have the Rule of Law or the Law of Rulers.

NYC apparently prefers the latter.

You're obviously not familiar with the concept of legislative intent either. Add that to the long list of your intellectual deficiencies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think you must be confusing me with an idiot.

.

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

I am not the one that is trying to argue that the government signed a contract with every single insurance company in the US, am I?

You're the one who thinks the Courts can't apply the principle of legislative intent to the meaning of a law.

That makes you a genuine idiot, not an impersonator. My bad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A legal Contract between two parties, does not even have to be a contract on paper quantum, it can be an agreed upon verbal contract between 2 parties, with or without a hand shake, and the court will hold it as viable....

No insurance company in the world would insure thousands of people that can not afford to pay for the insurance... with just a wink...that transmitted Federal AUTHORIZATION NUMBER with the amount the Fed has guaranteed to pay them, IS THEIR CONTRACT to be paid for services that they are providing....no way around it...

As I said, the law says that the subsides go to the individuals. The fact that insurance companies would not sell to said individuals unless someone told them how much said individual is going to get in subsidies does not prove that a contract exists between the government and the insurance companies.


By the ay, there is no such thing as a verbal contract with the government. The law actually requires the government to publish all contracts they enter into, which would be impossible unless it is documented. This prevents the next guy from coming in and saying that the contract doesn't apply because the guy that verbally agreed to said contract is no longer in charge. Unless you can show me a link to said contract it exist only in your mind.

the policy holder had to sign off what they wanted the gvt to do with the subsidy...the policy holder could choose to have the full subsidy go to the Insurer, or they could choose to have a portion of the subsidy go to the insurance company or none at all, as long as the monthly agreed amount between the 3, was paid...

All the people that I helped, had their subsidy go directly to the Insurance company....and they had a set monthly amount that was their responsibility.

That means I am right, thanks for admitting it.

 

[bripat9643]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

The way the law is written, it is illegal to give subsidies in states that have no exchanges.

That means this is another part of the law that Obama and the Dems will seek to ignore.

First, they'll bitch about the judges who uphold the law, then they'll just do what they always do. Pick and choose which laws to obey and pretend that Obama is a dictator who can change things with a wave of his pen.

The worst thing about it is that that Democrats deliberate wrote that provision into the bill to force states to set up exchanges. Now they're crying like a bunch of school children because the court believed they meant what they said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A legal Contract between two parties, does not even have to be a contract on paper quantum, it can be an agreed upon verbal contract between 2 parties, with or without a hand shake, and the court will hold it as viable....

No insurance company in the world would insure thousands of people that can not afford to pay for the insurance... with just a wink...that transmitted Federal AUTHORIZATION NUMBER with the amount the Fed has guaranteed to pay them, IS THEIR CONTRACT to be paid for services that they are providing....no way around it...

As I said, the law says that the subsides go to the individuals. The fact that insurance companies would not sell to said individuals unless someone told them how much said individual is going to get in subsidies does not prove that a contract exists between the government and the insurance companies.


By the ay, there is no such thing as a verbal contract with the government. The law actually requires the government to publish all contracts they enter into, which would be impossible unless it is documented. This prevents the next guy from coming in and saying that the contract doesn't apply because the guy that verbally agreed to said contract is no longer in charge. Unless you can show me a link to said contract it exist only in your mind.

5.3 Third-Party Beneficiary Contract Claims | Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys

Many government benefits are administered by private parties and local agencies. Health care under Medicaid and Medicare is provided by hospitals, nursing homes, doctors, and managed care organizations. Local housing agencies administer federal housing benefits, which are often delivered by private landlords. Private contractors frequently provide services to prisoners. Authorization for private parties and local agencies to manage public benefits is conferred through detailed contracts with the federal or state government, and these contracts commonly contain many protections for beneficiaries. When private parties or local agencies that are not state actors/1/ fail to provide the benefits mandated by the government contracts, contract law may provide an avenue for relief. Injured individuals may be able to sue the private party or local agency to enforce the contract as a third-party beneficiary of that agreement./2/

The core of this claim is that the government and the private party have entered into a contract for the benefit of the individuals for whom the government program was designed, and as a result, those individuals may seek to enforce the contract if it is breached. In light of recent Supreme Court cases emphasizing the need for detailed allegations in the complaint,/3/ it is important to plead the specific contract provisions that benefit your client and that are not being observed. If at all possible, before filing suit, acquire a copy of the specific contract at issue, or at least a copy of any model contract upon which it may be based. An undifferentiated reference in the complaint to the entire contract is unlikely to be sufficient./4/

i was tired of you pulling your normal bullshit.
Now that we have established that contracts are real we can move onto other things.

waits for it....

Damn you provided a link to a contract that has nothing to do with insurance companies to prove that the government contracted with insurance companies.

Good job at proving how stupid one of us is.

 

[bripat9643]

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

I am not the one that is trying to argue that the government signed a contract with every single insurance company in the US, am I?

You're the one who thinks the Courts can't apply the principle of legislative intent to the meaning of a law.

That makes you a genuine idiot, not an impersonator. My bad.

The problem with that argument is that the legislature indented that provision of the bill to be interpreted exactly as the court interpreted it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

the government is asking for a full panel review

which of course obama has packed with leftists

 

[bripat9643]

So the law says one thing and the far left believes it to be something else, go figure that one.

And how does a court know what the "intensions" of a law are when hardly any one on the far left bothers to read it?

No one once ever suggested that only state exchanges would be allowed to give subsidies. It's a fluke wording in the law that's obviously not intentional.

Sorry to disabuse you of your illusions, but that's exactly what they said.

If it wasn't intended to give subsidies on the federal exchange then the law was written to not work. Considering subsidies are a cornerstone of the entire law.

The law was intended to provide a carrot to states so they would set up exchanges. It didn't work, but not because the law was not written as intended.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And?

Are they making $$$$?

I am sure you think you have a point. I am also sure that the fact that it escapes the ability of anyone who is not delusional doesn't bother you in the least.

Thank you for admitting that you have not a clue.

Of the one court that voted 2-1 against ACA subsidies, 9 of the 14 justices on the full court are Dems. It will overturned right there.

Of the VA court, the vote was 3-0 for subsidies.

QWB, your side's day is over forever.

Because no Dem has ever voted against Obamacare, except for the ones who have.

But it is actually quite nice of you to admit that Democratic appointed judges care more about ideology than the law, it makes my point that only idiots trust the government.

 

[bripat9643]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

The way the law is written, it is illegal to give subsidies in states that have no exchanges.

That means this is another part of the law that Obama and the Dems will seek to ignore.

First, they'll bitch about the judges who uphold the law, then they'll just do what they always do. Pick and choose which laws to obey and pretend that Obama is a dictator who can change things with a wave of his pen.

It's a play on words...it's taking advantage of what's basically a typo. It's pathetic.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the phrase "a play on words." It's neither a typo nor a play on words.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So the law says one thing and the far left believes it to be something else, go figure that one.

And how does a court know what the "intensions" of a law are when hardly any one on the far left bothers to read it?

No one once ever suggested that only state exchanges would be allowed to give subsidies. It's a fluke wording in the law that's obviously not intentional.

If it wasn't intended to give subsidies on the federal exchange then the law was written to not work. Considering subsidies are a cornerstone of the entire law.

The law suggests it, but thanks for proving you don't read.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

So, in order to be just, they have to ignore what the law says and go with what you believe.

Makes sense, until you consider the fact that the same rule could apply to other things. Imagine a Republican court ignoring the law that says that equal rights belong to everyone and going with what they believe, that justice demands that they restrict the rights of people who don't agree with the Republican agenda. My guess is that you would find that outrageous, even though it fits nicely into your definition of justice.

People need to learn to think before you post.

To all the people that know NYcarbineer, the last comment was made to teach other people to think, we all know he will never do so.

I recommend you research the legal term 'legislative intent'.

And then, of course, come back and pretend that it isn't relevant or applicable.

I recommend you research SCOTUS precedents on choosing between an ambiguous legislative intent and what the law actually says.

Then again, that would require actually thinking, and we all know how you feel about that.

 

[Nyvin]

The way the law is written, it is illegal to give subsidies in states that have no exchanges.

That means this is another part of the law that Obama and the Dems will seek to ignore.

First, they'll bitch about the judges who uphold the law, then they'll just do what they always do. Pick and choose which laws to obey and pretend that Obama is a dictator who can change things with a wave of his pen.

It's a play on words...it's taking advantage of what's basically a typo. It's pathetic.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the phrase "a play on words." It's neither a typo nor a play on words.

Okay, so obviously then congress wrote a non-functioning law.

Why in the hell would they not allow the federal exchange from giving subsidies???

 

[JakeStarkey]

the Roberts' court, instead of creating law a la William Douglass etc of the 1930s to the 1960s (other than for corporations, I grant), is determined to preserve legislation wherever possible. The courts will do just this with ACA.

QWB above is not following the advice he is giving: typical