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

[LordBrownTrout]

O gets that head thumped again.

 

[bendog]

Because a conservative does not care what decisions others make.

They simply don't want those peoples decisions have an adverse affect on them.

You really don't understand conservatism.

Well conservative consider what effect their actions will have on others. Cheapskate freeloaders do not.

Curious Ben....

You have now twice called me a cheapskate freeloader.

Show me where I gave you reason to claim I am.

Or are you just frustrated because I made some points you could not refute....and you couldn't.....because you didn't.

see post 138.

 

[Ibentoken]

From here it goes to a full bench ruling.

---Make up of the Court? --------> 8 Democrats / 5 Republicans.

Very unlikely the court will uphold the decision of these 2 Teaper judges on the 3 judge panel.

Take note as well: Two other appeals courts have thrown out similar cases.

"Teaper"? What's a "Teaper"?

 

[saveliberty]

The Supreme Court rules on Constitutional issues. This seems to be a matter of whether the law allows for subsidies by the federal government. The law reads states only, so most likely the Court will simply remand the case back to the districts with instructions to follow the law as written. That means no Obamacare.

 

[paperview]

from here it goes to a full bench ruling.

---make up of the court? --------> 8 democrats / 5 republicans.

Very unlikely the court will uphold the decision of these 2 teaper judges on the 3 judge panel.

Take note as well: two other appeals courts have thrown out similar cases.

"teaper"? What's a "teaper"?

rwnj.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

From here it goes to a full bench ruling.

---Make up of the Court? --------> 8 Democrats / 5 Republicans.

Very unlikely the court will uphold the decision of these 2 Teaper judges on the 3 judge panel.

Take note as well: Two other appeals courts have thrown out similar cases.

"Teaper"? What's a "Teaper"?

opposite of a Leper....

 

[RandallFlagg]

My guess is that the scotus will let it stand. And, frankly, as the law is literally written, it's right. However, that doesn't alter the fact that the states' refusal to join up only arose because John 'not Jay' Roberts changed the law to let states opt out and still keep their pre ACA Medicaid dollars.

And the dems will campaign in 16 on "restoring" the health insurance the gop supreme court took away from working American families."

they can try...but

the law specifically says that you get subsidies through STATE exchanges.....not the Fed exchanges....this was obviously the great Dimwit idea to pressure Republican governors to set up state exchanges....but alot of governors were too smart to be lured into paying for more medicaid (obamacare).....

the Dimwits can't say 'foul' now.....especially since THEY are the only ones who wrote up this piece of **** legislation...

guess the illegals will have to all go to the Blue States to get Obamacare...

Frankly, I believe that this is the point: This law is so screwed up that the courts themselves are only guessing. That's democrats for you.


This law MUST be repealed (or defunded) and Congress must start over again WITHOUT the mandates. AS Chief Justice Roberts said - the voters got what they deserved, and it is up to Politicians to make it "right".

 

[Jarhead]

I could never understand why people who say they are conservative have a problem with requiring those who can contribute to their own healthcare costs to do it.

Because a conservative does not care what decisions others make.

They simply don't want those peoples decisions have an adverse affect on them.

You really don't understand conservatism.

Well conservative consider what effect their actions will have on others. Cheapskate freeloaders do not.

Now your argument might have some honesty if it were that you negotiated the cost of care down to its actual cost. There's no doubt ER's inflate their costs to get more from insured folks because they know they'll have to eat costs on people without insurance. But, you never made that argument. You just negotiated for a little as you could without regard to how you effected other people who did you no harm.

I negotiated? When did I say that I negotiated?

I have been to the ER once in my life and that was a Sunday and my Primary care doctor was not available....so I got stitched up by the ER....cost me over 900 bucks...and I paid it the day I got it....didn't negotiate it and didn't even know I could to be honest. I was 24 years old at the time.

I was referring to my freeloading brother....who is by no means a conservative.....and my post made it clear it was my brother.

 

[PoliticalTorch]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Not so fast. This ruling is being appealed to a higher court. But ultimately it is the people who lose. If this ruling by this court stands then they stand to lose all of the benefits through subsidies that they thought they would be getting under the federal exchange. And it will leave them without the coverage they need for their families and themselves. So, ultimately the People Lose if this is allowed to stand and that can only spell Bad News For Consumers of which we all are, but GOOD NEWS for Republicans. What's new.

 

[Jarhead]

Well conservative consider what effect their actions will have on others. Cheapskate freeloaders do not.

Curious Ben....

You have now twice called me a cheapskate freeloader.

Show me where I gave you reason to claim I am.

Or are you just frustrated because I made some points you could not refute....and you couldn't.....because you didn't.

see post 138.

you didn't read my post....you scanned it..

How can one compose an honest response to a post they did not read?

 

[nodoginnafight]

yeah you don't mine other people having to pay for your healthcare cause you're a cheapskate who doesn't mind taking money from his neighbors. That's real clear, dude.

I could never understand why people who say they are conservative have a problem with requiring those who can contribute to their own healthcare costs to do it.

Because a conservative does not care what decisions others make.

They simply don't want those peoples decisions have an adverse affect on them.

You really don't understand conservatism.

I hold a great many conservative positions. It appears that I understand conservatism a lot better than you understand who pays for people who do not contribute to their own healthcare costs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If this were upheld, Republican governors and legislators in the states without exchanges will get hurt the worst,

because they will have the power to

1. either immediately create exchanges, or,

2. see all their own people who are in the federal exchange lose the affordability of their healthcare.

 

[Jarhead]

I could never understand why people who say they are conservative have a problem with requiring those who can contribute to their own healthcare costs to do it.

Because a conservative does not care what decisions others make.

They simply don't want those peoples decisions have an adverse affect on them.

You really don't understand conservatism.

I hold a great many conservative positions. It appears that I understand conservatism a lot better than you understand who pays for people who do not contribute to their own healthcare costs.

I know exactly who pays for them. The tax payer does.

It has been that was for decades.

Now, the tax payer STILL pays for those that don't contribute.....but I am also mandated by the government to buy something.

Sure, I will buy it mandate or not.....but once a mandate is law to buy something, it opens the door for other mandates to buy things.
'
There is where I am concerned.

 

[saveliberty]

Don't you think we should at least make an attempt to do things legally in the United States?

Obamacare netted about 1% of Americans, guess you can call them the one percenters?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Breaking: Fourth Circuit panel unanimously upholds Obamacare subsidies for all eligible purchasers -


See more at: Breaking: Fourth Circuit panel unanimously upholds Obamacare subsidies for all eligible purchasers | The Progressive Pulse

You won't see the idiot author of this thread starting a thread about the above.

 

[paperview]

If this were upheld, Republican governors and legislators in the states without exchanges will get hurt the worst,

because they will have the power to

1. either immediately create exchanges, or,

2. see all their own people who are in the federal exchange lose the affordability of their healthcare.

It's not going to be upheld.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Because a conservative does not care what decisions others make.

They simply don't want those peoples decisions have an adverse affect on them.

You really don't understand conservatism.

I hold a great many conservative positions. It appears that I understand conservatism a lot better than you understand who pays for people who do not contribute to their own healthcare costs.

I know exactly who pays for them. The tax payer does.

It has been that was for decades.

Now, the tax payer STILL pays for those that don't contribute.....but I am also mandated by the government to buy something.

Sure, I will buy it mandate or not.....but once a mandate is law to buy something, it opens the door for other mandates to buy things.
'
There is where I am concerned.

The taxpayers have NOT been paying for the healthcare of those who don't contribute.
Healthcare consumers have been paying for it.

It appears I was right.

 

[paperview]

Breaking: Fourth Circuit panel unanimously upholds Obamacare subsidies for all eligible purchasers -


See more at: Breaking: Fourth Circuit panel unanimously upholds Obamacare subsidies for all eligible purchasers | The Progressive Pulse

You won't see the idiot author of this thread starting a thread about the above.

You're late carbsie.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/9489233-post134.html

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Not so fast. This ruling is being appealed to a higher court. But ultimately it is the people who lose. If this ruling by this court stands then they stand to lose all of the benefits through subsidies that they thought they would be getting under the federal exchange. And it will leave them without the coverage they need for their families and themselves. So, ultimately the People Lose if this is allowed to stand and that can only spell Bad News For Consumers of which we all are, but GOOD NEWS for Republicans. What's new.

what 'benefits'......?

because of Obummercare lots of the People lost their jobs....many now work only part time getting less income overall.....many lost their heathcare they liked...they lost their doctors they were promised they could keep....they now have to buy O'care which costs them more money.....even with subsidies because of the high deductibles....

where are you from....lala land...?

 

[bendog]

If this were upheld, Republican governors and legislators in the states without exchanges will get hurt the worst,

because they will have the power to

1. either immediately create exchanges, or,

2. see all their own people who are in the federal exchange lose the affordability of their healthcare.

Exactly. The effect of this ruling would be, if it stands and I suspect it will, a couple of million people in red states will lose insurance that the dems gave them. Will it be enough to flip texas or ark or la? Who knows.

It sure as hell isn't good news for us folks who'd like to see Obamacare be reformed into a system of individual tax credits letting people buy their own policies through a national exchange and regulated disclosure by providers of their actual charges for procedures.