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

[hazlnut]

Why does lady gunner lie and mislead in the thread title?

Just another lying conservative...

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat has trouble if two courts disagree then the issue will probably end up at SCOTUS, which has made it quite clear ACA is legal.

You're a 200 proof idiot, Fakey. The court did not rule that ACA was legal. It ruled only that the provision allowing the IRS to fine us for not buying insurance was legal. It ventured no opinion on any other part of the bill.

The 2-1 vote in the DC court will be overturned most like by the full court, which is 9 to 5 in favor of the dems.

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. It will be difficult for even the liberal hacks on the court to rule against the explicit language in the bill.

Yup, it did, and, yup, you are wrong.

Your chicken coop has been cleaned out, son.

The two teapers are two of three rightties on the DC court, which is 9 to 4 Dem.

The other court ruled 3 to 0 in favor of ACA subsidies.

bripat, pretending the moon is green will not make it so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I am the one that knows that legislative intent doesn't trump what the law actually says. Even the liberals on the court understand that, which is why the EPA lost when they tried to do it.

You're denying that there is such a thing as legislative intent taken into consideration.

Never said that, did I? What I said is it doesn't trump the actual wording of the law. The law clearly states, more than once, that only exchanges set up by states will get subsidies. If you examine the legislative intent you will clearly see that the intent was to encourage states to set up exchanges, which is why they didn't supply the subsidies for the federal exchange.

In other words, feel free to run around in circles and make a fool of yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

Really?

Can you prove that using actual logic?

 

[JakeStarkey]

QWB, you are not the expert on the wording of the law, are you?

One court with two TPrs ruled one way, another court ruled 3 to zip for it. The first court has a 9 to 5 majority of Dems, who will not allow that ruling to stand: it will be overturned.

You really think Robert's SCOTUS, committed to making legislation work, is going to be concerned about your type of thinking?

 

[francoHFW]

The White House is not worried. This judge is a RW nutjob who's said O-Care is a hopeless disaster etc etc. NOT going ANYWHERE. Maybe he wants to work for Faux Noise....

9:58 AM PT: From the opinion:

What they may not do is rely on our help to deny to millions of Americans desperately - needed health insurance through a tortured, nonsensical construction of a federal statute whose manifest purpose, as revealed by the wholeness and coherence of its text and structure, could not be more clear.

Second Obamacare ruling of day upholds subsidies in federal exchanges

 

[OKTexas]

bripat has trouble if two courts disagree then the issue will probably end up at SCOTUS, which has made it quite clear ACA is legal.

You're a 200 proof idiot, Fakey. The court did not rule that ACA was legal. It ruled only that the provision allowing the IRS to fine us for not buying insurance was legal. It ventured no opinion on any other part of the bill.

The 2-1 vote in the DC court will be overturned most like by the full court, which is 9 to 5 in favor of the dems.

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. It will be difficult for even the liberal hacks on the court to rule against the explicit language in the bill.

Yup, it did, and, yup, you are wrong.

Your chicken coop has been cleaned out, son.

The two teapers are two of three rightties on the DC court, which is 9 to 4 Dem.

The other court ruled 3 to 0 in favor of ACA subsidies.

bripat, pretending the moon is green will not make it so.

So being able to predict how a court will rule on who appointed them instead of the letter of the law you think is a good thing? If that's the case our courts have outlived their usefulness and are no better than the political hacks that appoint them. An unbiased judiciary is a linchpin of our society, when we lose that our country is doomed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OKTexas, you expect the hard right on SCOTUS to vote a certain way.

So do I. As I know how the four lefties will vote.

No where did I say it was good thing: you only, said it. Grow up.

I told the truth about what is likely to happen.

An unbiased judiciary will have no problem with government health care.

We have had since the government was formed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

Really?

Can you prove that using actual logic?

Yes. Right after you acknowledge the validity of legislative intent as a judicial consideration and admit you knew nothing about it before this thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Legislative intent is clear and present in ACA.

Do suggest otherwise makes the mind boggle.

SCOTUS will uphold the subsidies.

 

[Vigilante]

CNN Poll: Twice As Many Americans Were Hurt By Obamacare Than Helped

Townhall.com ^


Not an unusual data point at all, based on the polling trend -- but a timely reality check for the delusional "people love Obamacare!" propagandists. CNN's latest national survey includes a number of noteworthy nuggets, including the "Affordable" Care Act fallout verdict referenced in the headline (via Ed Morrissey): (1) President Obama's job approval rating is mired at (42/55), languishing roughly where it's been for months. He is underwater with men (39/58), women (45/52), young people (45/49), and independents (34/62). Seventy-seven percent of Democrats and nearly two-thirds of non-white voters continue to give Obama high marks, but virtually everyone...

 

[JakeStarkey]

CNN Poll: Twice As Many Americans Were Hurt By Obamacare Than Helped

the stats don't support the headline at all by Townhall.

Actually, it is 64 (better off or the same) to 35 (worse off). What TH is not explaining is that the 35 are either paying a slight increase or, no longer being able to float catastrophic policies that put the entire community at risk as the client socializes the risk and profits the difference.

Vigilante is stupid enough to think folks cannot read and interpret polls, and that they can be fooled by his twisted logic.

 

[Vigilante]

CNN Poll: Twice As Many Americans Were Hurt By Obamacare Than Helped

the stats don't support the headline at all by Townhall.

Actually, it is 64 (better off or the same) to 35 (worse off). What TH is not explaining is that the 35 are either paying a slight increase or, no longer being able to float catastrophic policies that put the entire community at risk as the client socializes the risk and profits the difference.

Vigilante is stupid enough to think folks cannot read and interpret polls, and that they can be fooled by his twisted logic.

But Rep Frog Boy II, if we add the worse off and the about the same we get 81%.... Idiot likes to play with polls like all subversive lying mother fuckers do!

 

[JakeStarkey]

CNN Poll: Twice As Many Americans Were Hurt By Obamacare Than Helped

the stats don't support the headline at all by Townhall.

Actually, it is 64 (better off or the same) to 35 (worse off). What TH is not explaining is that the 35 are either paying a slight increase or, no longer being able to float catastrophic policies that put the entire community at risk as the client socializes the risk and profits the difference.

Vigilante is stupid enough to think folks cannot read and interpret polls, and that they can be fooled by his twisted logic.

But Rep Frog Boy II, if we add the worse off and the about the same we get 81%.... Idiot likes to play with polls like all subversive lying mother fuckers do!

Yes, idiots like you get called out for playing with polls falsely.

Then you are exposed, then you lose, and then you whine.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

and there it is. we are done here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the law hadn't intended there to be subsidized insurance available in the federal exchange,

there wouldn't be a federal exchange in the bill.

Really?

Can you prove that using actual logic?

Yes. Right after you acknowledge the validity of legislative intent as a judicial consideration and admit you knew nothing about it before this thread.

Already admitted it is valid, but thanks for proving you don't read.

As for not knowing about it before this thread, I know more about it than you do. Did you know that the 7th Circuit handed down a decision saying pretty much what I have said in this thread this week?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Legislative intent is clear and present in ACA.

Do suggest otherwise makes the mind boggle.

SCOTUS will uphold the subsidies.

Yes, it is, which is why the second highest court in the land ruled the way they did.

 

[OKTexas]

OKTexas, you expect the hard right on SCOTUS to vote a certain way.

So do I. As I know how the four lefties will vote.

No where did I say it was good thing: you only, said it. Grow up.

I told the truth about what is likely to happen.

An unbiased judiciary will have no problem with government health care.

We have had since the government was formed.

An unbiased court will follow the letter of the law, it's up to congress to fix it not the court. In this case the letter of the law is unambiguous, the dems tried to leverage the States into creating an exchange and it backfired, simple as that.

 

[Vigilante]

CNN Poll: Twice As Many Americans Were Hurt By Obamacare Than Helped

the stats don't support the headline at all by Townhall.

Actually, it is 64 (better off or the same) to 35 (worse off). What TH is not explaining is that the 35 are either paying a slight increase or, no longer being able to float catastrophic policies that put the entire community at risk as the client socializes the risk and profits the difference.

Vigilante is stupid enough to think folks cannot read and interpret polls, and that they can be fooled by his twisted logic.

But Rep Frog Boy II, if we add the worse off and the about the same we get 81%.... Idiot likes to play with polls like all subversive lying mother fuckers do!

Yes, idiots like you get called out for playing with polls falsely.

Then you are exposed, then you lose, and then you whine.

Your HYPOCRISY, Rep Frog Boy II is almost beyond belief. You fuck with a poll and when I do the exact same thing, get a bigger number,you go NUTS.... Sorry, child, YOU LOST, and everyone sees it!.....

 

[Vigilante]

POLL: Fewer than 1 in 5 better off because of law...