The Shocking Secret Behind ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers

[g5000]

Only because they're doing it ILLEGALLY....

what happens when the courts make it official in a few months from now...?

The courts have ALREADY made it official!

Federal judge: No, the ObamaCare statute doesn’t limit subsidies to state-run exchanges







Sorry! ObamaCare is here to stay.

Like I said, this was a "shocking secret" only to the rubes. And that is because Fox News kept the full picture a secret from you. "We report (half truths), you decide!"

don't make conclusions based on one judge rejecting a case....it's already on appeal...not to mention several other cases coming up...

Last month, one of those lawsuits – Halbig v. Sebelius – went before a skeptical three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit.

After years of not articulating any statutory basis for its decision, the administration assured the court that the PPACA “makes clear that Congress expected the federal premium tax credits to be available on the federal exchange.”

How?

Through “a system of nested provisions that when you walk through them lead to the conclusion that the federal Exchange stands in the place of a state exchange.”

Oh.

No one disputes the purpose of a federal Exchange is to stand in the place of a state-established Exchange. The problem is the administration’s logical leap that an Exchange established by the federal government is somehow “established by the State.”

Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee considered the panel’s swing vote, somewhat comically forced the administration to admit the tautology that an Exchange established by the federal government is not “established by the State.” He then explained, “the key language is who establishes the Exchange, and you just keep coming back to well, the Secretary establishes it.”

The D.C. Circuit likely will issue a ruling sometime in the coming months, as will the 4th Circuit, which will hear oral arguments in King v. Sebelius on May 14, another challenge to the legality of the subsidies. Two similar challenges, filed by the attorneys general in Oklahoma (Pruitt v. Sebelius) and Indiana (Indiana v. IRS), await consideration in federal district courts.

I don't see a Fox News link.

At least I got you to do a little research for yourself instead of drinking Fox News' piss.

It's not so open and shut as you tried to make it sound, now is it.

 

[HenryBHough]

Since liberals associate primarily with other liberals - though occasionally with out-and-out Communists - is it any wonder that they hear no disapproval of any of their New Messiah's antics/"accomplishments"?

 

[g5000]

Allow me to expand the education of the rubes a little more.

Congress frequently passes laws which are challenged in court. The courts sometimes rule against those laws.

But...

Many times, when the courts rule against a law, they suggest what changes could be made to the law to make it constitutionally sound.

If an ultimate court decision rules the ACA does not authorize federal subsidies for the citizens of those states which rejected ObamaCare, they will most likely suggest what changes to the ACA could be made to patch the hole. Congress can then make those changes.

Until such a time when a court bans a government activity, the government continues to operate as it does.

This kind of process has happened many times.


It would be amusing to see if the GOP nakedly tries to stop a fix which would provide their citizens with financial help to buy insurance. Their mask would have to completely come off then.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The courts have ALREADY made it official!

Federal judge: No, the ObamaCare statute doesn’t limit subsidies to state-run exchanges







Sorry! ObamaCare is here to stay.

Like I said, this was a "shocking secret" only to the rubes. And that is because Fox News kept the full picture a secret from you. "We report (half truths), you decide!"

don't make conclusions based on one judge rejecting a case....it's already on appeal...not to mention several other cases coming up...

Last month, one of those lawsuits – Halbig v. Sebelius – went before a skeptical three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit.

After years of not articulating any statutory basis for its decision, the administration assured the court that the PPACA “makes clear that Congress expected the federal premium tax credits to be available on the federal exchange.”

How?

Through “a system of nested provisions that when you walk through them lead to the conclusion that the federal Exchange stands in the place of a state exchange.”

Oh.

No one disputes the purpose of a federal Exchange is to stand in the place of a state-established Exchange. The problem is the administration’s logical leap that an Exchange established by the federal government is somehow “established by the State.”

Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee considered the panel’s swing vote, somewhat comically forced the administration to admit the tautology that an Exchange established by the federal government is not “established by the State.” He then explained, “the key language is who establishes the Exchange, and you just keep coming back to well, the Secretary establishes it.”

The D.C. Circuit likely will issue a ruling sometime in the coming months, as will the 4th Circuit, which will hear oral arguments in King v. Sebelius on May 14, another challenge to the legality of the subsidies. Two similar challenges, filed by the attorneys general in Oklahoma (Pruitt v. Sebelius) and Indiana (Indiana v. IRS), await consideration in federal district courts.

I don't see a Fox News link.

At least I got you to do a little research for yourself instead of drinking Fox News' piss.

It's not so open and shut as you tried to make it sound, now is it.

that's because it was already linked in Post #1.....which you obviously didn't read...

 

[g5000]

LOL, you haven't clue as to the mood of the public...stop ptetending you do.

There is outright rage on Main Street america, I listen to it every day.

When you see the issue ads, remember it was I who told you they were coming.

The ads will have no effect, the people on the street living with this know the truth and no lies be touted as truth are going to change that.

You remember I told you that.

Yeah, you go with that.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Allow me to expand the education of the rubes a little more.

Congress frequently passes laws which are challenged in court. The courts sometimes rule against those laws.

But...

Many times, when the courts rule against a law, they suggest what changes could be made to the law to make it constitutionally sound.

If an ultimate court decision rules the ACA does not authorize federal subsidies for the citizens of those states which rejected ObamaCare, they will most likely suggest what changes to the ACA could be made to patch the hole. Congress can then make those changes.

Until such a time when a court bans a government activity, the government continues to operate as it does.

This kind of process has happened many times.


It would be amusing to see if the GOP nakedly tries to stop a fix which would provide their citizens with financial help to buy insurance. Their mask would have to completely come off then.

well that's a 'wait and see' isn't it.....?

in the meantime what Obama is doing is ILLEGAL...

 

[g5000]

Allow me to expand the education of the rubes a little more.

Congress frequently passes laws which are challenged in court. The courts sometimes rule against those laws.

But...

Many times, when the courts rule against a law, they suggest what changes could be made to the law to make it constitutionally sound.

If an ultimate court decision rules the ACA does not authorize federal subsidies for the citizens of those states which rejected ObamaCare, they will most likely suggest what changes to the ACA could be made to patch the hole. Congress can then make those changes.

Until such a time when a court bans a government activity, the government continues to operate as it does.

This kind of process has happened many times.


It would be amusing to see if the GOP nakedly tries to stop a fix which would provide their citizens with financial help to buy insurance. Their mask would have to completely come off then.

well that's a 'wait and see' isn't it.....?

in the meantime what Obama is doing is ILLEGAL...

Ipse dixit. You are not a judge, so your opinion is just an opinion.

Nice try, though!

So yes, we will have to wait and see. But I predict the ultimate ending will be no interruption of federal subsidies.

 

[g5000]

To clarify my prediction, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The courts ultimately rule the subsidies are entirely legal.

2. The courts ultimately rule the subsidies are unsound and recommend how to fix the law to make them sound. Then those changes will be enacted by Congress.

I predict one of those two outcomes will come to pass. The subsidies will continue.

3. The courts ultimately rule the subsidies are unsound and recommend how to fix the law to make them sound. The Republicans then succeed in fucking Americans in red states out of their federal subsidies by blocking the fix.

This outcome is extremely unlikely.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Allow me to expand the education of the rubes a little more.

Congress frequently passes laws which are challenged in court. The courts sometimes rule against those laws.

But...

Many times, when the courts rule against a law, they suggest what changes could be made to the law to make it constitutionally sound.

If an ultimate court decision rules the ACA does not authorize federal subsidies for the citizens of those states which rejected ObamaCare, they will most likely suggest what changes to the ACA could be made to patch the hole. Congress can then make those changes.

Until such a time when a court bans a government activity, the government continues to operate as it does.

This kind of process has happened many times.


It would be amusing to see if the GOP nakedly tries to stop a fix which would provide their citizens with financial help to buy insurance. Their mask would have to completely come off then.

well that's a 'wait and see' isn't it.....?

in the meantime what Obama is doing is ILLEGAL...

Ipse dixit. You are not a judge, so your opinion is just an opinion.

Nice try, though!

So yes, we will have to wait and see. But I predict the ultimate ending will be no interruption of federal subsidies.

you can predict all you want.....but exactly how do you explain that Sebelius's exchanges were 'established by the state'......in the many states that rejected establishing exchanges....?

 

[Freewill]

The fact those same states have prevented their citizens from getting into the expanded Medicaid program is going to be used against the politicians who blocked them.

Uh...red states....and this will be used against them ?

Don't think so.

How did you come up with that idea ?

Demcrats are going to go after Republican incumbents with a vengeance.

The issue ads practically write themselves. Democratic candidates, and the SuperPACS and JFCs who support them, will run ads reminding everyone how the Republicans blocked the Medicaid expansion in their state, thus preventing voting citizens of their states from getting insured.

They will also run ads reminding everyone how the Republicans failed to build a state health insurance exchange, thus doing everything they could to stop people from getting insured.

How can you NOT see this coming?

You are right of course. But it is interesting that the democrats built a system for failure and when it fails they blame everyone but themselves. I just hope mental health is covered under OBAMACARE.

 

[The Rabbi]

Barack Obama wants you to know he enrolled 7.5 million Americans through ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. What he doesn’t want you to know is how.

Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend.

If the courts put a stop to that unauthorized spending, a majority of Exchange enrollees would suddenly face the full cost of ObamaCare coverage, and enrollments would plummet.
....

The eligibility rules for the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies specify nine times, without deviation, that recipients must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.” House Democrats even complained about this part of the Senate-passed PPACA before they themselves approved it, so they knew exactly what they were sending to the president’s desk.

Confounding supporters’ expectations, 34 states declined to establish Exchanges. Under the plain terms of federal law, subsidies are therefore available in the 16 Exchanges established by states, and not available in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government.
.....

In January of this year, the Obama administration began spending billions of dollars of unauthorized subsidies to induce Americans to enroll in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government. The president is literally forcing taxpayers, without any legal authorization, to subsidize two out of every three Exchange enrollments.

The shocking secret behind ObamaCare enrollment numbers | Fox News

The original ACA required all states to particpate and create health insurance exchanges. Thus the language about subsidies in relation to those state exchanges.

Since the Supreme Court ruled that states can opt out of ObamaCare, that language obviously has to be changed, if it hasn't already been in separate legislation.

Sorry, but this isn't a "shocking secret" except to rubes who have no clue.

Most of the states which opted out of ObamaCare are red states. Splooging with glee in your pants that all those people in those states could get fucked out of their subsidies is not exactly good political strategy. The fact those same states have prevented their citizens from getting into the expanded Medicaid program is going to be used against the politicians who blocked them.

That clearly is not the case. The law envisaged that most states would create exchanges. IN order to encourage that, the law provided subsidies to those states which did. But a subsidy for the federal exchange was not part of that. That is why the law is written like that.
Obama&Co simply took it upon themselves to rewrite the law, yet again, to achieve some goal of theirs. That is not how this government works. Yes, Congress can go back and amend the law. Given Obama did not give them the change to do something they were inclinded to do anyway--delay the mandate--how likely do you think it will be they will even be given the opportunity to vote on something?
As for the public, this issue is so complex there is no way they will even pay attention, much less understand it.

 

[The Rabbi]

To clarify my prediction, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The courts ultimately rule the subsidies are entirely legal.

2. The courts ultimately rule the subsidies are unsound and recommend how to fix the law to make them sound. Then those changes will be enacted by Congress.

I predict one of those two outcomes will come to pass. The subsidies will continue.

3. The courts ultimately rule the subsidies are unsound and recommend how to fix the law to make them sound. The Republicans then succeed in fucking Americans in red states out of their federal subsidies by blocking the fix.

This outcome is extremely unlikely.

Enforcing the law is not fucking anyone out of anything.
Not giving someone something is not fucking them out of anything. You do not fuck someone out of something that was never his to begin with.
Typical lib view.

 

[Howey]

Barack Obama wants you to know he enrolled 7.5 million Americans through ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. What he doesn’t want you to know is how.

Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend.

And to think I just posted this yesterday...

You can always tell when something comes from a conspiracy or right wing kook site when the heading includes words like "shocking", "mass disobedience", "emboldened patriots",
"tyranny", and the like.

"MAY" is another one of those words.

We've also discussed the author of this OPINION piece elsewhere. Michael F. Cannon is a libertarian employed by the CATO Institute and is the originator of the "DEATH PANEL" bullshit, winner of Politifact's 2009 LIE OF THE YEAR.

He's regularly debunked by nonpartisan fact checkers for his stupidity.

All statements involving Michael Cannon | PolitiFact

More Florida Fouls

My point?

Get back to me when "may" becomes "has".

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Barack Obama wants you to know he enrolled 7.5 million Americans through ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. What he doesn’t want you to know is how.

Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend.

And to think I just posted this yesterday...

You can always tell when something comes from a conspiracy or right wing kook site when the heading includes words like "shocking", "mass disobedience", "emboldened patriots",
"tyranny", and the like.

"MAY" is another one of those words.

We've also discussed the author of this OPINION piece elsewhere. Michael F. Cannon is a libertarian employed by the CATO Institute and is the originator of the "DEATH PANEL" bullshit, winner of Politifact's 2009 LIE OF THE YEAR.

He's regularly debunked by nonpartisan fact checkers for his stupidity.

All statements involving Michael Cannon | PolitiFact

More Florida Fouls

My point?

Get back to me when "may" becomes "has".

so you think it's conspiracy bullshit......just how do you explain the court cases....?

 

[Zander]

The fact those same states have prevented their citizens from getting into the expanded Medicaid program is going to be used against the politicians who blocked them.

Uh...red states....and this will be used against them ?

Don't think so.

How did you come up with that idea ?

Demcrats are going to go after Republican incumbents with a vengeance.

The issue ads practically write themselves. Democratic candidates, and the SuperPACS and JFCs who support them, will run ads reminding everyone how the Republicans blocked the Medicaid expansion in their state, thus preventing voting citizens of their states from getting insured.

They will also run ads reminding everyone how the Republicans failed to build a state health insurance exchange, thus doing everything they could to stop people from getting insured.

How can you NOT see this coming?

How can you NOT see that opposing Obamacare is going to be "THE" winning ticket for the next 2-3 election cycles? Obamacare is a disruptive clusterfuck....as each piece unfolds (and unravels) every person/ family and business in the country will be effected and it won't be in a good way...

 

[jillian]

How can you NOT see that opposing Obamacare is going to be "THE" winning ticket for the next 2-3 election cycles? Obamacare is a disruptive clusterfuck....as each piece unfolds (and unravels) every person/ family and business in the country will be effected and it won't be in a good way...

because now that 8 million people have signed up, it is no longer a winning ticket for the obama deranged. it is only "convincing" to those who already are in agreement with the rant and rave temper tantruming rightwing house.

and even if it were.... you still can't run loons and expect to win.

you actually have to OFFER something besides cutting taxes for corporatists.

 

[Zander]

How can you NOT see that opposing Obamacare is going to be "THE" winning ticket for the next 2-3 election cycles? Obamacare is a disruptive clusterfuck....as each piece unfolds (and unravels) every person/ family and business in the country will be effected and it won't be in a good way...

because now that 8 million people have signed up, it is no longer a winning ticket for the obama deranged. it is only "convincing" to those who already are in agreement with the rant and rave temper tantruming rightwing house.

and even if it were.... you still can't run loons and expect to win.

you actually have to OFFER something besides cutting taxes for corporatists.

You can't be this stupid Jillian. At least 5 million people lost their policies. Enrolling 7 or 8 million is really nothing to celebrate. What happens when the employer policies are required to meet the O'care requirements? When 35 or 40 million people are told that they no longer are covered by their employers, what do you think the political ramifications will be?

 

[Howey]

Barack Obama wants you to know he enrolled 7.5 million Americans through ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. What he doesn’t want you to know is how.

Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend.

And to think I just posted this yesterday...

You can always tell when something comes from a conspiracy or right wing kook site when the heading includes words like "shocking", "mass disobedience", "emboldened patriots",
"tyranny", and the like.

"MAY" is another one of those words.

We've also discussed the author of this OPINION piece elsewhere. Michael F. Cannon is a libertarian employed by the CATO Institute and is the originator of the "DEATH PANEL" bullshit, winner of Politifact's 2009 LIE OF THE YEAR.

He's regularly debunked by nonpartisan fact checkers for his stupidity.

All statements involving Michael Cannon | PolitiFact

More Florida Fouls

My point?

Get back to me when "may" becomes "has".

so you think it's conspiracy bullshit......just how do you explain the court cases....?

Where did I say anything was a conspiracy?

 

[Derideo_Te]

How can you NOT see that opposing Obamacare is going to be "THE" winning ticket for the next 2-3 election cycles? Obamacare is a disruptive clusterfuck....as each piece unfolds (and unravels) every person/ family and business in the country will be effected and it won't be in a good way...

because now that 8 million people have signed up, it is no longer a winning ticket for the obama deranged. it is only "convincing" to those who already are in agreement with the rant and rave temper tantruming rightwing house.

and even if it were.... you still can't run loons and expect to win.

you actually have to OFFER something besides cutting taxes for corporatists.

Uh...red states....and this will be used against them ?

Don't think so.

How did you come up with that idea ?

Demcrats are going to go after Republican incumbents with a vengeance.

The issue ads practically write themselves. Democratic candidates, and the SuperPACS and JFCs who support them, will run ads reminding everyone how the Republicans blocked the Medicaid expansion in their state, thus preventing voting citizens of their states from getting insured.

They will also run ads reminding everyone how the Republicans failed to build a state health insurance exchange, thus doing everything they could to stop people from getting insured.

How can you NOT see this coming?

How can you NOT see that opposing Obamacare is going to be "THE" winning ticket for the next 2-3 election cycles? Obamacare is a disruptive clusterfuck....as each piece unfolds (and unravels) every person/ family and business in the country will be effected and it won't be in a good way...

So your platform is to deprive the sick of healthcare and you believe that this is going to win you the next 2-3 election cycles?

Reality doesn't play a big role in your political strategy, does it?

 

[boedicca]

How can you NOT see that opposing Obamacare is going to be "THE" winning ticket for the next 2-3 election cycles? Obamacare is a disruptive clusterfuck....as each piece unfolds (and unravels) every person/ family and business in the country will be effected and it won't be in a good way...

because now that 8 million people have signed up, it is no longer a winning ticket for the obama deranged. it is only "convincing" to those who already are in agreement with the rant and rave temper tantruming rightwing house.

and even if it were.... you still can't run loons and expect to win.

you actually have to OFFER something besides cutting taxes for corporatists.

You can't be this stupid Jillian. At least 5 million people lost their policies. Enrolling 7 or 8 million is really nothing to celebrate. What happens when the employer policies are required to meet the O'care requirements? When 35 or 40 million people are told that they no longer are covered by their employers, what do you think the political ramifications will be?

That's why they're delaying the Employer Mandate until after the 2014 elections.