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

[paperview]

And added this:

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 federal appeals courts have already thrown out similar cases.

 

[Plasmaball]

My brother had no healthcare for most of his adult life to date. 2 years ago, he broke his leg and I took him to the emergency room the same day. We were greeted by a packed waiting area and he had to wait over 2 hours to be seen and have it set. He was assigned to a local clinic for follow-up where, as expected, he always had to wait a minimum of 1 hour beyond his appointment time to be seen. Talk about a pain in the ass. But it was for free.

Now he has insurance thanks to the ACA. Happy for him.

He seems to have strained his knee...may be an ACL....waiting for his MRI.....2 weeks from now.

When he twisted it, he woke up the next morning with major swelling. He called his Primary Care doctor who agreed to see him the following day. He waited about an hour beyond his appointment time to be seen. His primary doctor immediately referred him to an orthopedist who had an appointment available the following Thursday....2 days later.

He waited 3 hours beyond his appointment time to be seen.

The orthopedist spent 10 minutes with him and said an MRI is necessary.

As I said, that was scheduled 2 weeks down the road.

So.....

Broken leg with no insurance....2 hours and then set...and 1 hour clinic 4 times before cast was removed.....total 6 hours from break to heal.

Swollen knee....1 hour for primary...3 hours orthopedist....and 2 weeks before they even know what it is.

So far 4 hours plus 2 weeks before issue even diagnosed.

LMAO....he said he preferred the ER for free as opposed to having healthcare. It is easier, friendlier...and he feels more human.

going to the Er doesnt mean its free.

 

[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.

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.

Settle down.

This ruling will have no effect.

It's being challenged, and it will be overturned.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Nonsense. Far more people opposed ObamaCare than support it. The 26 states that originally opted out of setting up exchanges had very good reasons for doing so: their citizens opposed ObamaCare, and after the fed support for Medicaid goes away, they are left with a giant bleeding budget wound.

This is going to end up on the SCOTUS, and I think it will be upheld.

Even Obama's law professor from Harvard thinks the feds overreached.

 

[Freewill]

So all those voters in all those red states whose Republican governments have not set up state exchanges will not be eligible for the subsidies.

That should please those voters immensely.

Nor are the voters of those states eligible for the Medicaid expansion.



The issue ads write themselves.


Of course, this subsidy problem is very easily fixed. All Congress has to do is amend the ACA to allow subsidies through the federal exchange.


The ball is now in the Republican House's court.


Hmmmm...what will they do? What will they do...

OR, they do what is actually right and everyone gets a subsidy. I want my free phone that I have a right to. I want free food that I have a right to.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Wrong.

The when the ER negotiates its bill down....depending on the income of the patient....sometimes to zero.....the "loss" is passed on to the state who, in turn gets subsidies from the federal government.

Now, seeing as the only income the government generates is tax payer money....the tax payer is paying for it.

Apparently...NOW, it is healthcare premiums of those that pay who will be paying the subsidies...

Thus why those that pay full price will be paying higher premiums.

 

[boedicca]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio].[/ame]

 

[OKTexas]

So a court says the law is what the law is and the commies go ballistic. Just like the Hobby Lobby decision, they want things the way they wish them to be, not as they are. Too funny!

 

[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.

Settle down.

This ruling will have no effect.

It's being challenged, and it will be overturned.

honestly, I didn't know two other circuits tossed it. But, if you read the ACA literally, it does say subsidies go through state exchanges. I can see judges taking a pass on this as it is a political issue to be fought out between congress and the potus, but Roberts' decision actually created the problem, so I'm not at all confident that the scotus will not be activist. On the other hand, Roberts very definitely does not want to go down as the guy who scuttled the biggest govt middle class benefit since medicare. Talk about politicizing the court.

 

[Jarhead]

My brother had no healthcare for most of his adult life to date. 2 years ago, he broke his leg and I took him to the emergency room the same day. We were greeted by a packed waiting area and he had to wait over 2 hours to be seen and have it set. He was assigned to a local clinic for follow-up where, as expected, he always had to wait a minimum of 1 hour beyond his appointment time to be seen. Talk about a pain in the ass. But it was for free.

Now he has insurance thanks to the ACA. Happy for him.

He seems to have strained his knee...may be an ACL....waiting for his MRI.....2 weeks from now.

When he twisted it, he woke up the next morning with major swelling. He called his Primary Care doctor who agreed to see him the following day. He waited about an hour beyond his appointment time to be seen. His primary doctor immediately referred him to an orthopedist who had an appointment available the following Thursday....2 days later.

He waited 3 hours beyond his appointment time to be seen.

The orthopedist spent 10 minutes with him and said an MRI is necessary.

As I said, that was scheduled 2 weeks down the road.

So.....

Broken leg with no insurance....2 hours and then set...and 1 hour clinic 4 times before cast was removed.....total 6 hours from break to heal.

Swollen knee....1 hour for primary...3 hours orthopedist....and 2 weeks before they even know what it is.

So far 4 hours plus 2 weeks before issue even diagnosed.

LMAO....he said he preferred the ER for free as opposed to having healthcare. It is easier, friendlier...and he feels more human.

going to the Er doesnt mean its free.

It is not free.

You are billed...for the ER itself, the doctors on staff at the time and the nurses on straff at the time.

However, the bill itself is negotiable based on ones income.

My brother negotiated down to less than 10%...and had both the doctors fee and the nurses fee waived.

SO the tax payer ended up paying the difference.

 

[g5000]

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

The article in the OP link mentions two court decisions, one of which is the Fourth Circuit court's decision saying federal exchange subsidies are legal.

The OP and the topic title chose to only mention the one which said the federal exchange subsidies are illegal.

 

[Jarhead]

Interesting Bendog...

You have not acknowledged your error.

No problem.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

Nonsense. Far more people opposed ObamaCare than support it. The 26 states that originally opted out of setting up exchanges had very good reasons for doing so: their citizens opposed ObamaCare, and after the fed support for Medicaid goes away, they are left with a giant bleeding budget wound.

This is going to end up on the SCOTUS, and I think it will be upheld.

Even Obama's law professor from Harvard thinks the feds overreached.

well this isnt true either.

 

[Plasmaball]

My brother had no healthcare for most of his adult life to date. 2 years ago, he broke his leg and I took him to the emergency room the same day. We were greeted by a packed waiting area and he had to wait over 2 hours to be seen and have it set. He was assigned to a local clinic for follow-up where, as expected, he always had to wait a minimum of 1 hour beyond his appointment time to be seen. Talk about a pain in the ass. But it was for free.

Now he has insurance thanks to the ACA. Happy for him.

He seems to have strained his knee...may be an ACL....waiting for his MRI.....2 weeks from now.

When he twisted it, he woke up the next morning with major swelling. He called his Primary Care doctor who agreed to see him the following day. He waited about an hour beyond his appointment time to be seen. His primary doctor immediately referred him to an orthopedist who had an appointment available the following Thursday....2 days later.

He waited 3 hours beyond his appointment time to be seen.

The orthopedist spent 10 minutes with him and said an MRI is necessary.

As I said, that was scheduled 2 weeks down the road.

So.....

Broken leg with no insurance....2 hours and then set...and 1 hour clinic 4 times before cast was removed.....total 6 hours from break to heal.

Swollen knee....1 hour for primary...3 hours orthopedist....and 2 weeks before they even know what it is.

So far 4 hours plus 2 weeks before issue even diagnosed.

LMAO....he said he preferred the ER for free as opposed to having healthcare. It is easier, friendlier...and he feels more human.

going to the Er doesnt mean its free.

It is not free.

You are billed...for the ER itself, the doctors on staff at the time and the nurses on straff at the time.

However, the bill itself is negotiable based on ones income.

My brother negotiated down to less than 10%...and had both the doctors fee and the nurses fee waived.

SO the tax payer ended up paying the difference.

thats not free..

 

[NYcarbineer]

So a court says the law is what the law is and the commies go ballistic. Just like the Hobby Lobby decision, they want things the way they wish them to be, not as they are. Too funny!

Hey, asshole, more courts have ruled in Obamacare's favor on this than against it.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Settle down.

This ruling will have no effect.

It's being challenged, and it will be overturned.

honestly, I didn't know two other circuits tossed it. But, if you read the ACA literally, it does say subsidies go through state exchanges. I can see judges taking a pass on this as it is a political issue to be fought out between congress and the potus, but Roberts' decision actually created the problem, so I'm not at all confident that the scotus will not be activist. On the other hand, Roberts very definitely does not want to go down as the guy who scuttled the biggest govt middle class benefit since medicare. Talk about politicizing the court.

Congress wrote the law so that there would be a carrot for states to set up exchanges...the subsidies. This was deliberate and intentional, and part of the Dems dealings to munge together a bunch of votes.

Instead of the law going to a join committee to reconcile language, the Dems played parliamentary shenanigans. They got the law they wrote. It is not for the courts or the executive branch to rewrite the "flaws" in the law. This "flaw" is a FEATURE.

 

[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.

It's not going to be upheld.

lol, if that's the case do you think all the RWnuts in this thread who are praising the institution of our courts will maintain that high praise?

 

[g5000]

Just to refresh: The topic title and OP are very misleading.

There have been two appeals court decisions.

One said the subsidies for federal exchange subscribers are illegal.

The other said those subsidies are legal.

LMAO Bye bye Obamacare

Premature ejaculation.

 

[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

The article in the OP link mentions two court decisions, one of which is the Fourth Circuit court's decision saying federal exchange subsidies are legal.

The OP and the topic title chose to only mention the one which said the federal exchange subsidies are illegal.

The link I provided is to my earlier post about the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

Upholding the Federal subsidies.

 

[bendog]

As to who pays for the uninsured


Trauma in the ER: Who pays for the uninsured?