Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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!.....
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.
Yes the court in VA with a 3 to 0 vote. The DC full court will be called overturn the Teaper 2 to 1 Vote.
5.3 Third-Party Beneficiary Contract Claims | Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys
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.
Why do you lie?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.
the ruling will be overturned
the government asked for a full panel review
by all eleven judges
which used to be eight
until obama packed three more onto the circuit
just for a rainy day like this
The gvt will honor their agreement with the Insurance companies on the exchange covering people getting the subsidies this year is what I read last night...they will be paid what was agreed to with the insurance companies and the policy holder, and the federal gvt.
It's the enrollment for next year that has been thrown in to chaos...
I also read last night that the solution could be the States without the exchanges contracting Health Care .gov as their State exchange....it's a simple fix.
Right now, there is a state contracting with Connecticut, to use the Connecticut State exchange's software and program to run their own State's system....it tried with it's own program to run its own state exchange but it failed so, they went to Connecticut which was successful with their developed exchange system and have contracted with them to be able to use it on their own exchange...
So, since this was okay and considered an exchange in the state leasing it, then states should be able to contract with the federal gvt to use the federal exchange's software and system or should be able to lease Connecticut's system like the other state....
I don't know Screaming Eagle....The gvt will honor their agreement with the Insurance companies on the exchange covering people getting the subsidies this year is what I read last night...they will be paid what was agreed to with the insurance companies and the policy holder, and the federal gvt.
It's the enrollment for next year that has been thrown in to chaos...
I also read last night that the solution could be the States without the exchanges contracting Health Care .gov as their State exchange....it's a simple fix.
Right now, there is a state contracting with Connecticut, to use the Connecticut State exchange's software and program to run their own State's system....it tried with it's own program to run its own state exchange but it failed so, they went to Connecticut which was successful with their developed exchange system and have contracted with them to be able to use it on their own exchange...
So, since this was okay and considered an exchange in the state leasing it, then states should be able to contract with the federal gvt to use the federal exchange's software and system or should be able to lease Connecticut's system like the other state....
if HealthCare.gov becomes their 'State' exchange.....does that mean the state is liable for funding after the Fed funds are cut....?
Unfunded mandates? Go figure.
So in short what I am hearing is not only did we not know what was in it until it passed, but now it doesn't really say what it says.
Not sure about the rest of you, but when something doesn't work as advertised, I don't buy it.
CitizenSeven, look up legislative intent.
Their intent hasn't been meet, since the states haven't set up their own exchanges. Sorry, they wrote a bad law and miscalculated the resistance they would meet, but it's not the job of the courts to protect people from bad laws, rather to rule on them as written.
