Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies

[EriktheRed]

Good, they aren't necessary. Health Care is a national issue. You know, One Nation Under God right?

When is your delusional mind going to accept the fact that there are no national issues, only State issues and federal issues. The Constitution was supposed to draw very distinct lines between the two. Welcome to post-constitutional America.

Last time I checked we had something called National Security, or did you miss that part of reality, like most of the rest? Public Health is a national issue, period.

Commie concepts, we know, you love'em.

Reality tends toward the left, so sad for you...

So sad for all of us.

 

[bendog]

"Our task is to apply the text, not to improve upon it."

Majority opinion in Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, Div. of Cadence Industries Corp, 493 U.S. 120, 126 (1989)

Did you get that out of context quote from Faux's faux come-over judge?

They construed Civil Procedure Rule 11 in a way they thought would best achieve the stated purpose of the rule. LOL

 

[bendog]

This country is over when the supreme court makes decisions based on politics and political correctness rather than on the law and constitution.

We are going down the tubes and the libs are celebrating the demise of this great nation. Its truly sad.

Republicans are in charge of Congress and SCOTUS. They should fix things.

They will.... After millions more Americans see that they can longer afford medical care due to the rising premiums and deductibles due to the ACA, and throw the Democrats out on their collective asses.

Well, I suspect the voters will vote for whomever they thing will best make sure health care is affordable.

 

[Obiwan]

Bendog

Face it, the voters will vote for whoever won't make healthcare unaffordable for them....

 

[TemplarKormac]

They construed Civil Procedure Rule 11 in a way they thought would best achieve the stated purpose of the rule. LOL

No they didn't. When asked to rule in a way not in line with the stated purpose of the rule, they said not. They don't make rules, they apply them. But when they were asked to rule in a way that applied the stated purpose of Obamacare, they did the exact opposite.

Did you get that out of context quote from Faux's faux come-over judge?

No, I read the entire opinion of that Rule 11 case. Guess who wrote the majority opinion? Justice Scalia. And I'll take his legal expertise over yours, dogbreath.

 

[bendog]

Bendog

Face it, the voters will vote for whoever won't make healthcare unaffordable for them....

Exactly. And of all the bad things of Obamacare, it classes people differently in terms of Medicaid, subsidized and non-subsidized. Not that the gop stepped up to the plate.

 

[bendog]

They construed Civil Procedure Rule 11 in a way they thought would best achieve the stated purpose of the rule. LOL

No they didn't. When asked to rule in a way not in line with the stated purpose of the rule, they said not. They don't make rules, they apply them. But when they were asked to rule in a way that applied the stated purpose of Obamacare, they did the exact opposite.

Did you get that out of context quote from Faux's faux come-over judge?

No, I read the entire opinion of that Rule 11 case. Guess who wrote the majority opinion? Justice Scalia. And I'll take his legal expertise over yours, dogbreath.

OMG, Scalia reached different results applying the same analysis. Who'd a guessed!

 

[TemplarKormac]

OMG, Scalia reached different results applying the same analysis. Who'd a guessed!

No, he reached the same conclusion. He voted against the law using the same logic you dimwit.

A law must be applied by the text, not to be improved upon by the court. The law must live or die by how it is written. That's what he said in his dissent, bendog. And I will always defer to the superior legal expertise of a SCOTUS justice over your armchair litigating.

 

[nicolondon]

Given how many posts there are on the ACA its clear just how polarizing this is! I think a lot of the problem is that trying to get this expanded coverage has stepped on a lot of toes in terms of state versus federal power. Its not really something that Europeans can truly understand because we view government in a different way. Having read many USA forums its clear that many Americans feel more loyalty and connection with their State rather than Washington. I suppose given the size of the USA this disconnection is understandable.

The debate about the language and those polarizing 4 words in the ACA highlights both good and bad, on one hand people want the letter of the law followed but at the same time what delivers a better end result. I think its clear that the SCOTUS are resentful of politicians using them as a political football, healthcare is an area where decisions can deeply effect peoples lives, one shouldn't lose sight of this.

Does the SCOTUS have the right to deliver judgements of this kind? Why should they be doing the dirty work. This matter IMO is better left to the judgement of the American people, their votes and what type of America they want, healthcare is too fundamental to be decided on by 9 judges.

If the American people want to change or see the end of the ACA they have the choice at the ballot box, this should not be a decision left to the SCOTUS.

I hope people don't mind me giving my Eurocentric opinion on this!

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The end of Scalia's Dissent. I could not agree more.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.

Scalia is such an upset old drag queen.

While I really don't care about the decision itself, I think your statement is nothing more than little-man's bravado.

While I don't care for pure conservative points of view, he isn't wrong on his assesment of this one.

What is more difficult to fathom is the depths to which the court went to reach a particular conclusion.

I love the Constitution. Regardless of how I feel about Scalia (and it isn't great).....he pretty much nailed it.

I mourn for the day a conservative court would twist things to strike down gay marriage which now seems more likely given the poor decisions they have handed down.

I can take or leave Obamacare. It's the court I worry about.

Your analysis is cat piss.

 

[EriktheRed]

• Jeb! Bush: "This decision is not the end of the fight against Obamacare."
  Ted Cruz: "You the teenage immigrant washing dishes are paying illegal taxes right now today because of President Obama's deception, because of the IRS's lawlessness and because of the Supreme Court's judicial activism, violating their oaths of office ... I remain fully committed to repealing every single word of Obamacare."
  Marco Rubio: "Despite the Court’s decision, ObamaCare is still a bad law that is having a negative impact on our country and on millions of Americans. I remain committed to repealing this bad law and replacing it ..."
  Scott Walker: "Republicans must redouble their efforts to repeal and replace this destructive and costly law."
  Rand Paul: "This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head."
  Today's King v. Burwell decision, which protects and expands ObamaCare, is an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny ... repeal ObamaCare, and pass real reform ...
  [*]Rick Perry: "While I disagree with the ruling, it was never up to the Supreme Court to save us from Obamacare. […] It’s time we repealed Obamacare and replaced it ...
  [*]Chris Christie: "This decision turns common language on its head. Now leaders must turn our attention to making the case that ObamaCare must be replaced."
  Bobby Jindal: "President Obama would like this to be the end of the debate on Obamacare, but it isn’t. […] Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, the debate will grow. Conservatives must be fearless in demanding that our leaders in Washington repeal and replace Obamacare with a plan that will lower health care costs and restore freedom."
  Lindsey Graham: "Today’s decision only reinforces why we need a president who will bring about real reform that repeals Obamacare and replaces it with a plan that expands consumer choice, increases coverage, delivers better value for the dollar, and gives states more control, without stifling job creation.
  Ben Carson: "Those of us who pledge to repeal #Obamacare must redouble our efforts and not waste time and energy mourning today's #SCOTUS ruling."
  Mike Huckabee: "Today's King v. Burwell decision, which protects and expands ObamaCare, is an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny. […] As President, I will protect Medicare, repeal ObamaCare, and pass real reform that will actually lower costs, while focusing on cures and prevention rather than intervention."
  Clown: "Get. The. Fuck. Out. Of. My. Car."

2016 Republican clown car occupants weigh in on Obamacare decision

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The end of Scalia's Dissent. I could not agree more.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent.

Scalia is such an upset old drag queen.

So, can't refute what he said, so right to the ad hominem.

It's the same old tired argument that was used against Social Security,and you can see how that worked out.

So yes, Scalia, a mean old nasty son of a bitch, is nothing more than a worn out old drag queen.

I would venture to say when that when he's dead, he'll be twice the man you are....assuming you a man at all.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see how the court could simply ignore the English language simply to uphold the law. "Exchange established by the state" meant exactly that. These people are scared.

That s because they take the phrase in context with what is around it to determine meaning and intent

Only a conservative is unable to understand the concept of context

 

[Flopper]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare




.

When the court ignores black letter law, we're all in trouble.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.

Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.

Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.

And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.

Yes, people dropped their insurance but they also bought insurance, something you would like to ignore.

The uninsured rate among U.S. adults declined to 11.9% for the first quarter of 2015 -- down 36% since the end of 2013, just before the Affordable Care Act went into effect and 33% in the last 24 months. The uninsured rate is the lowest since Gallup and Healthways began tracking it in 2008. If the current trend continues, the uninsured rate will be below 8% by 2017.
In U.S. Uninsured Rate Dips to 11.9 in First Quarter

 

[rightwinger]

Like I said, the law will still die:

Obamacare is the law of the land. 10 million and more depend upon it. It is not going to die and it is not going to be repealed. The sooner Republicans recognize that, the sooner they can work on getting their priorities into it

 

[BlueGin]

Shameful that so many D's care so little about their own family that they refuse to provide for them.

I not only provide for my family but I am willing to provide for those who are not in as good a position for healthcare as I am

Republicans have a position of....I got mine, fuck everyone else

Maybe there should be a place to donate so lazy POS can get more free stuff.
personally, I work to better my family, F the lazy bastard that does nothing to help himself.

Healthcare is a human necessity...it is not "free stuff"

Explains the people that signed up for Obamacare. Got subsidies and never paid their premiums.

Only, that's a lie.

People ARE paying their premiums.

Try again, this time, with talent.

Article: WSJ

Health law enrolled on track to meet Obama Admins revised goals.

6/2/2015

Latest figures show drop from 11.7 mil enrolled or automatically enrolled but had not paid premiums that the admin claimed on March 9th.

But It is common in the industry for a certain percentage of customers to sign up but not pay.

Of the 34 states in fed exchanges. 7.3 million have signed up and paid.

 

[Obiwan]

Flopper

The rate of people being insured rose because the insurance was mandated.

That's also why insurance rates and deductibles skyrocketed for most of the population, and actually made seeing a doctor unaffordable for many in the middle class.... See, insurance doesn't do you any good if you can't afford to use it!!!

 

[rightwinger]

This country is over when the supreme court makes decisions based on politics and political correctness rather than on the law and constitution.

We are going down the tubes and the libs are celebrating the demise of this great nation. Its truly sad.

Republicans are in charge of Congress and SCOTUS. They should fix things.

Clearly NOT the SCOTUS, and being in charge of Congress is meaningless when SCOTUS chooses to ignore the law.

Which law was ignored?

They interpreted the law. That is their job

Uhhh, no. Their job is to rule on what the law actually says, not what someone believes it should have said. Words have meanings. Laws are made of words and it is important that the laws say what they mean and mean what they say. If SCOTUS did their job of ruling on what the law actually said, then they would have found that subsidies couldn't be given. They instead bought into the administration's "oopsie", we didn't really mean what we said and that isn't their job. The correct answer was," your law does not match your intent. You are free to fix it. Until then, follow the law the way you wrote it."

Republicans presented a convoluted interpretation of the phrase. The court did not accept it

 

[BlueGin]

So is this the end of the road for any more challenges to the ACA? Another question will GOP Presidential challengers be putting forward alternatives to the ACA or will they clarify what they want to change. Its all well and good having a problem with something but surely unless you can put forward viable alternatives then your argument loses some of its validity. As an onlooker from afar I'm still trying to get my head around why ACA has been so divisive, surely anything that expands health coverage and covers existing conditions can only help Americans. Am I missing something? Putting peoples politics aside and viewing this just objectively what exactly are the big problems with the ACA?

I can answer that.

The process of enrollment and reenrollment has issues that need to be addressed surrounding the applied tax credit assessment, verification, and 1095-A form accuracy.

Providers in red states are apprehensive to accept Obamacare plans, some for political reasons, and some for financial reasons, so the lower cost the plan, the narrower the provider network will be,

Those are the two biggest headaches for Obamacare policy holders

Thanks for your reply. Am I right in thinking that there are parts of the ACA that the majority of Americans support. So is it a case that the sensible thing for any future POTUS would be to tweek the ACA rather than get rid of it completely. Surely coverage of pre existing conditions cannot be removed now, morally that would be dreadful and inhumane.

The "things that Americans support" have little affect on reality for Obamacare policy holders.

Pre-existing condistions cannot be put back in place. It would be political suicide for those who do.

Here is the problem with any changes to Obamacare, which the SCOTUS has prevented.

The ACA has metastasized itself to our industry, you cannot dust off the old systems, policies, procedures, and hire everybody back, who left the industry, and left behind $10.hr customer service people. Those jobs went to the Phillipines and Mexico.

Chaging the way we do business for the ACA has been so traumatic, if they pulled the plug it would be cutting off the head, to cure the headache

Of course you can get them back. According to the left. Those employees were all absorbed by all of the major hospitals and are living happily ever after as worker bees never feeling the crunch of unemployment.

I've never heard "the left" make that claim.

You may have missed the part about how I work for a medical insurance company, and my job is to handle policy holders who have appeals or grievances about Obamacare.

They did not go to hospitals, they went anywhere they could, and because they were changing their job descriptions, they had to take what they could get.

If the GOP repeals Obamacare, they'll have over 10 million angry people without insurance anymore, and a couple million insurance industry workers displaced

Was in another ACA thread where I cited the outsourcing of healthcare jobs.

 

[OKTexas]

Another loss for conservatives trying to take away peoples healthcare




.

When the court ignores black letter law, we're all in trouble.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.

Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.

Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.

And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.

Yes, people dropped their insurance but they also bought insurance, something you would like to ignore.

The uninsured rate among U.S. adults declined to 11.9% for the first quarter of 2015 -- down 36% since the end of 2013, just before the Affordable Care Act went into effect and 33% in the last 24 months. The uninsured rate is the lowest since Gallup and Healthways began tracking it in 2008. If the current trend continues, the uninsured rate will be below 8% by 2017.
In U.S. Uninsured Rate Dips to 11.9 in First Quarter

And most can't afford to get sick, go figure.