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

[bendog]

A judicial panel in a 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.

And as you may note, SOME States didn't set up Exchanges because if I'm not mistaken, that's a provision in the Law itself. States don't HAVE to set up Exchanges. It's Optional.

Interesting.

Not exactly. The law, as originally written, required the states to either forego ALL federal Medicaid dollars OR establish exchanges and expand Medicaid. John (not Jay) Roberts rewrote the law to allow states to keep the original Medicaid dollars and not expand. His justification for that ruling was that congress had made some "implied" deal with the states. It's good to have judicial restraint. Hail Bushii.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A judicial panel in a 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.

And as you may note, SOME States didn't set up Exchanges because if I'm not mistaken, that's a provision in the Law itself. States don't HAVE to set up Exchanges. It's Optional.

Interesting.

Not exactly. The law, as originally written, required the states to either forego ALL federal Medicaid dollars OR establish exchanges and expand Medicaid. John (not Jay) Roberts rewrote the law to allow states to keep the original Medicaid dollars and not expand. His justification for that ruling was that congress had made some "implied" deal with the states. It's good to have judicial restraint. Hail Bushii.

Then in that case, Roberts essentially planted the seeds of Obamacare's destruction. Brilliant. Wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[bendog]

And as you may note, SOME States didn't set up Exchanges because if I'm not mistaken, that's a provision in the Law itself. States don't HAVE to set up Exchanges. It's Optional.

Interesting.

Not exactly. The law, as originally written, required the states to either forego ALL federal Medicaid dollars OR establish exchanges and expand Medicaid. John (not Jay) Roberts rewrote the law to allow states to keep the original Medicaid dollars and not expand. His justification for that ruling was that congress had made some "implied" deal with the states. It's good to have judicial restraint. Hail Bushii.

Then in that case, Roberts essentially planted the seeds of Obamacare's destruction. Brilliant. Wolf in sheep's clothing.

True, but hardly a conservative.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not exactly. The law, as originally written, required the states to either forego ALL federal Medicaid dollars OR establish exchanges and expand Medicaid. John (not Jay) Roberts rewrote the law to allow states to keep the original Medicaid dollars and not expand. His justification for that ruling was that congress had made some "implied" deal with the states. It's good to have judicial restraint. Hail Bushii.

Then in that case, Roberts essentially planted the seeds of Obamacare's destruction. Brilliant. Wolf in sheep's clothing.

True, but hardly a conservative.

Irrelevant.

 

[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.

If we don't want government to use guns to force people to pay for other people's healthcare, then we actually "want" people to go without healthcare.

You're a dick and a tool. Grow up and debate like a man.

I'll debate you. If you oppose the government helping making something like healthcare affordable to someone who cannot otherwise afford it,

then yes, you do want those people to go without healthcare unless you have an alternative means of making healthcare affordable to those people.

 

[bendog]

Then in that case, Roberts essentially planted the seeds of Obamacare's destruction. Brilliant. Wolf in sheep's clothing.

True, but hardly a conservative.

Irrelevant.

hardly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.

In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. Plaintiffs in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell argued that the ACA, as written, only allows that often-significant financial aid to be issued to people who bought insurance on a marketplace set up by a state.

From the article..^^^

Not a good month legislatively for the criminal left who are getting SLAMMED by the Judiciary. LOL

First of all 2 other courts rejected this argument.

Secondly, all this means is that if it is upheld, the people who lose their subsidies will be MOSTLY PEOPLE IN RED STATES who refused to set up exchanges.

 

[peach174]

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.

If we don't want government to use guns to force people to pay for other people's healthcare, then we actually "want" people to go without healthcare.

You're a dick and a tool. Grow up and debate like a man.

I'll debate you. If you oppose the government helping making something like healthcare affordable to someone who cannot otherwise afford it,

then yes, you do want those people to go without healthcare unless you have an alternative means of making healthcare affordable to those people.

Free Medical Clinics.
The Free Medical Clinic of America

The National Association of Free & Charitable Clinics

 

[TemplarKormac]

In typical fashion, the Obama Administration says "the subsidies will keep flowing despite the ruling." Now if that isn't a complete and total disregard of our judicial system, I don't know what is.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Chief Justice Roberts screwed the pooch in the first place. The SCOTUS should NEVER have rendered an opinion granting any alleged imprimatur of "Constitutionality" to the obviously unConstitutional ObumblerCare Law.

That said, today's lower court determination is a move in the right direction.

It's nice to see a day containing SOME good news.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.

In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. Plaintiffs in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell argued that the ACA, as written, only allows that often-significant financial aid to be issued to people who bought insurance on a marketplace set up by a state.

From the article..^^^

Not a good month legislatively for the criminal left who are getting SLAMMED by the Judiciary. LOL

First of all 2 other courts rejected this argument.

Secondly, all this means is that if it is upheld, the people who lose their subsidies will be MOSTLY PEOPLE IN RED STATES who refused to set up exchanges.

Just face it. You guys just lost this war. Patient choice wins over political agenda.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.

In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. Plaintiffs in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell argued that the ACA, as written, only allows that often-significant financial aid to be issued to people who bought insurance on a marketplace set up by a state.

From the article..^^^

Not a good month legislatively for the criminal left who are getting SLAMMED by the Judiciary. LOL

First of all 2 other courts rejected this argument.

Secondly, all this means is that if it is upheld, the people who lose their subsidies will be MOSTLY PEOPLE IN RED STATES who refused to set up exchanges.

The point, being that you missed it, is that without these "subsidies", the scheme falls flat on its face. Because it's a wealth re-distribution scheme. Without the injected payment to create demand, prices do not go down. So "affordable" so arbitrarily chosen as a soundbite, becomes non-existent.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In typical fashion, the Obama Administration says "the subsidies will keep flowing despite the ruling." Now if that isn't a complete and total disregard of our judicial system, I don't know what is.

What else is new?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If we don't want government to use guns to force people to pay for other people's healthcare, then we actually "want" people to go without healthcare.

You're a dick and a tool. Grow up and debate like a man.

I'll debate you. If you oppose the government helping making something like healthcare affordable to someone who cannot otherwise afford it,

then yes, you do want those people to go without healthcare unless you have an alternative means of making healthcare affordable to those people.

So if I don't want to pay your rent, that means I want you to go without housing?

Really?

 

[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.

If we don't want government to use guns to force people to pay for other people's healthcare, then we actually "want" people to go without healthcare.

You're a dick and a tool. Grow up and debate like a man.

I'll debate you. If you oppose the government helping making something like healthcare affordable to someone who cannot otherwise afford it,

then yes, you do want those people to go without healthcare unless you have an alternative means of making healthcare affordable to those people.

We've never seen a comprehensive health care reform plan from Republicans. Even though they held all the power in all the branches of government, they did nothing. Even though the Democrats telegraphed exactly what they would do if given the chance, the Republicans did nothing when they had every opportunity to do so.

Oh, wait. They did do something. They created a new trillion dollar medical entitlement, without paying for it. A trillion dollar bribe for senior votes in the 2004 election.

But they never put a comprehensive health reform on the table. So they sold us down the river into the hands of the Democrats who DID have a plan on the table.

The American people wanted health care reform. The Democrats gave the country a plan, the Republican thumbed their noses at America.


And so here we are.

And the GOP has STILL not put a plan on the table. Even at this late date. They only know how to whine about the other guy's plan and pass 40 repeals without putting up an alternative. They have no balls, and they don't give a fuck about the uninsured.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If we don't want government to use guns to force people to pay for other people's healthcare, then we actually "want" people to go without healthcare.

You're a dick and a tool. Grow up and debate like a man.

I'll debate you. If you oppose the government helping making something like healthcare affordable to someone who cannot otherwise afford it,

then yes, you do want those people to go without healthcare unless you have an alternative means of making healthcare affordable to those people.

So if I don't want to pay your rent, that means I want you to go without housing?

Really?

Do you want poor, low income Americans to have affordable healthcare or not?

 

[g5000]

If we don't want government to use guns to force people to pay for other people's healthcare, then we actually "want" people to go without healthcare.

You're a dick and a tool. Grow up and debate like a man.

I'll debate you. If you oppose the government helping making something like healthcare affordable to someone who cannot otherwise afford it,

then yes, you do want those people to go without healthcare unless you have an alternative means of making healthcare affordable to those people.

So if I don't want to pay your rent, that means I want you to go without housing?

Really?

If you do not offer a comprehensive alternate plan, at the very least it means you don't give a shit about those who are struggling.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In typical fashion, the Obama Administration says "the subsidies will keep flowing despite the ruling." Now if that isn't a complete and total disregard of our judicial system, I don't know what is.

Two courts have ruled for the subsidies.

 

[BluesMistress]

Obamacare Not looking too good today. Seems Obama's old law professor even agrees that obamacare has Big Problems....Don't bet the farm on obamacare...


President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he “wouldn’t bet the family farm” on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts.

“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”

Obama's Law Professor: 'I Wouldn't Bet' on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge | National Review Online

 

[bripat9643]

I'll debate you. If you oppose the government helping making something like healthcare affordable to someone who cannot otherwise afford it,

then yes, you do want those people to go without healthcare unless you have an alternative means of making healthcare affordable to those people.

So if I don't want to pay your rent, that means I want you to go without housing?

Really?

Do you want poor, low income Americans to have affordable healthcare or not?

Sure, but I want the government to leave mine alone. I'm sure we can find more than enough generous libruls to donate money to provide healthcare for the poor.