Uh-oh: Supreme Court will hear case re Obamacare subsides illegal in states without state exchanges

[Little-Acorn]

It seems bad news comes for the Democrats in groups.

On Tuesday the American people rejected their past six years of liberalism, govt expansion, and coercion in no uncertain terms.

And now, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case that points out that Obamacare allows subsidies only in states that have set up their own state exchanges. With 26 states opting out of such exchanges, this would effectively gut the most fundamental purpose of Obamacare: To transfer money from those who earn more to those who earn less.

The law itself is clear: Subsidies can be provided by exchanges set up by the states. And states don't have to set up exchanges at all.

The liberals are now saying that this is obviously a typo in the law: Of course, of course they meant ALL exchanges, both Federal and state.

But one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

Of course, Gruber has now done a hasty 180 and insists it's not so, in lockstep with the rest of the leftist shills.

Now he gets to explain it to the judges. Why should the Democrats be allowed to violate the law they wrote themselves, after deliberately writing the law so that non-exchange states were forbidden to give subsidies?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court to hear new ObamaCare challenge Fox News

Supreme Court Justices to hear health law subsidies challenge

Published November 07, 2014

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to President Obama's health care law.
The justices on Friday say they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.

A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Of course, Chief Justice Roberts already rewrote the part of Obamacare that says the penalty for people not signing up for it, was a penalty. He erased all occurrences of the word "penalty", and substituted "tax", even though many in congress only voted for it on the basis that it contained no taxes. Then he declared that, since it was a tax, it was Constitutional.

Any reason to think he won't rewrite the Subsidies section to say "Federal and State exchanges" instead of just "state exchanges" that it says now? Despite the fact that Democrats deliberately wrote it to say only "exchanges set up by the states", to pressure states into setting up exchanges?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

It seems bad news comes for the Democrats in groups.

On Tuesday the American people rejected their past six years of liberalism, govt expansion, and coercion in no uncertain terms.

And now, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case that points out that Obamacare allows subsidies only in states that have set up their own state exchanges. With 26 states opting out of such exchanges, this would effectively gut the most fundamental purpose of Obamacare: To transfer money from those who earn more to those who earn less.

The law itself is clear: Subsidies can be provided by exchanges set up by the states. And states don't have to set up exchanges at all.

The liberals are now saying that this is obviously a typo in the law: Of course, of course they meant ALL exchanges, both Federal and state.

But one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

Of course, Gruber has now done a hasty 180 and insists it's not so, in lockstep with the rest of the leftist shills.

Now he gets to explain it to the judges. Why should the Democrats be allowed to violate the law they wrote themselves, after deliberately writing the law so that non-exchange states were forbidden to give subsidies?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court to hear new ObamaCare challenge Fox News

Supreme Court Justices to hear health law subsidies challenge

Published November 07, 2014

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to President Obama's health care law.
The justices on Friday say they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.

A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.

With only 1/3 of registered voters showing up at the polls, that is not "the American people" which by definition would mean 316,000,000 people.

As for the ACA going under, brace yourself for the insurance companies to jack your premiums beyond your ability to pay after everyone who can't afford insurance goes to the ER. If an ER doc decides that a patient's conditions warrants a hospital stay, then that bill goes on your tab, too, stupid sucker.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is that bad news for Democrats?

If the Court rules against the ACA subsidy in those states, the governors/legislatures of those states will have the choice of either setting up state exchanges to qualify for the subsidy,

or screwing a shitload of their own residents out of that valuable assistance in paying for their health insurance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the intent of the law, no matter what the wording.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It seems bad news comes for the Democrats in groups.

On Tuesday the American people rejected their past six years of liberalism, govt expansion, and coercion in no uncertain terms.

And now, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case that points out that Obamacare allows subsidies only in states that have set up their own state exchanges. With 26 states opting out of such exchanges, this would effectively gut the most fundamental purpose of Obamacare: To transfer money from those who earn more to those who earn less.

The law itself is clear: Subsidies can be provided by exchanges set up by the states. And states don't have to set up exchanges at all.

The liberals are now saying that this is obviously a typo in the law: Of course, of course they meant ALL exchanges, both Federal and state.

But one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

Of course, Gruber has now done a hasty 180 and insists it's not so, in lockstep with the rest of the leftist shills.

Now he gets to explain it to the judges. Why should the Democrats be allowed to violate the law they wrote themselves, after deliberately writing the law so that non-exchange states were forbidden to give subsidies?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court to hear new ObamaCare challenge Fox News

Supreme Court Justices to hear health law subsidies challenge

Published November 07, 2014

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to President Obama's health care law.
The justices on Friday say they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.

A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.

With only 1/3 of registered voters showing up at the polls, that is not "the American people" which by definition would mean 316,000,000 people.

As for the ACA going under, brace yourself for the insurance companies to jack your premiums beyond your ability to pay after everyone who can't afford insurance goes to the ER. If an ER doc decides that a patient's conditions warrants a hospital stay, then that bill goes on your tab, too, stupid sucker.

Two words: We won

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the intent of the law, no matter what the wording.

Very true. And in this case, the intent is clear:

one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

So with this in mind, it is very likely that the Supremes will rule that subsidies in states without their own exchanges, are illegal.

The wording of the law is clear... and so is the intent.

Case closed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why is that bad news for Democrats?

If the Court rules against the ACA subsidy in those states, the governors/legislatures of those states will have the choice of either setting up state exchanges to qualify for the subsidy,

or screwing a shitload of their own residents out of that valuable assistance in paying for their health insurance.

It's not the governors or state legislatures screwing their citizens.

It's the congressional Democrats who raised health care costs enormously and then deliberately wrote a law saying that states couldn't get any help paying them if they didn't set up their own exchanges. In other words, Democrats who tried to force states to act against their own better judgment, and against the welfare of their own citizens.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If the Court rules against the ACA subsidy in those states,

....then the law becomes even more unconstitutional, violating the misnamed "Welfare Clause" that requires that any Federal program that benefits some Americans, must benefit all of them equally.

 

[Rotagilla]

Of course, Chief Justice Roberts already rewrote the part of Obamacare that says the penalty for people not signing up for it, was a penalty. He erased all occurrences of the word "penalty", and substituted "tax", even though many in congress only voted for it on the basis that it contained no taxes. Then he declared that, since it was a tax, it was Constitutional.

Any reason to think he won't rewrite the Subsidies section to say "Federal and State exchanges" instead of just "state exchanges" that it says now? Despite the fact that Democrats deliberately wrote it to say only "exchanges set up by the states", to pressure states into setting up exchanges?

nsa got to him and "suggested" that he "moderate" his opinions unless he wanted some secrets revealed about himself.....

 

[Rotagilla]

americans don't want dear leaders obamacare and it will be repealed/choked off financially.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It seems bad news comes for the Democrats in groups.

On Tuesday the American people rejected their past six years of liberalism, govt expansion, and coercion in no uncertain terms.

And now, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case that points out that Obamacare allows subsidies only in states that have set up their own state exchanges. With 26 states opting out of such exchanges, this would effectively gut the most fundamental purpose of Obamacare: To transfer money from those who earn more to those who earn less.

The law itself is clear: Subsidies can be provided by exchanges set up by the states. And states don't have to set up exchanges at all.

The liberals are now saying that this is obviously a typo in the law: Of course, of course they meant ALL exchanges, both Federal and state.

But one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

Of course, Gruber has now done a hasty 180 and insists it's not so, in lockstep with the rest of the leftist shills.

Now he gets to explain it to the judges. Why should the Democrats be allowed to violate the law they wrote themselves, after deliberately writing the law so that non-exchange states were forbidden to give subsidies?

---------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court to hear new ObamaCare challenge Fox News

Supreme Court Justices to hear health law subsidies challenge

Published November 07, 2014

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new challenge to President Obama's health care law.
The justices on Friday say they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums.

A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.

With only 1/3 of registered voters showing up at the polls, that is not "the American people" which by definition would mean 316,000,000 people.

As for the ACA going under, brace yourself for the insurance companies to jack your premiums beyond your ability to pay after everyone who can't afford insurance goes to the ER. If an ER doc decides that a patient's conditions warrants a hospital stay, then that bill goes on your tab, too, stupid sucker.

Two words: We won

one word

Winning

--LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the intent of the law, no matter what the wording.

Very true. And in this case, the intent is clear:

one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

So with this in mind, it is very likely that the Supremes will rule that subsidies in states without their own exchanges, are illegal.

The wording of the law is clear... and so is the intent.

Case closed.

I rather think this is somewhat irrelevant though in the grand scheme of things as the legislative hole is easily plugged by congress changing that part of the law. I think it would be suicide for the republicans to block a basic fix like that - the democrats would beat them over the heads with it.

 

[Rotagilla]

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the intent of the law, no matter what the wording.

Very true. And in this case, the intent is clear:

one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

So with this in mind, it is very likely that the Supremes will rule that subsidies in states without their own exchanges, are illegal.

The wording of the law is clear... and so is the intent.

Case closed.

I rather think this is somewhat irrelevant though in the grand scheme of things as the legislative hole is easily plugged by congress changing that part of the law. I think it would be suicide for the republicans to block a basic fix like that - the democrats would beat them over the heads with it.

smart republicans won't get led into the trap of "trying to fix it"...bad laws that americans overwhelmingly do NOT want and didn't get any say in, should be repealed...not "fixed"

americans don't want dear leaders "care".

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the intent of the law, no matter what the wording.

Very true. And in this case, the intent is clear:

one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

So with this in mind, it is very likely that the Supremes will rule that subsidies in states without their own exchanges, are illegal.

The wording of the law is clear... and so is the intent.

Case closed.

I rather think this is somewhat irrelevant though in the grand scheme of things as the legislative hole is easily plugged by congress changing that part of the law. I think it would be suicide for the republicans to block a basic fix like that - the democrats would beat them over the heads with it.

smart republicans won't get led into the trap of "trying to fix it"...bad laws that americans overwhelmingly do NOT want and didn't get any say in, should be repealed...not "fixed"

americans don't want dear leaders "care".

The intent was that all Americans would have access to the exchanges and to the subsidies.

 

[Rotagilla]

The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the intent of the law, no matter what the wording.

Very true. And in this case, the intent is clear:

one of the key architects of Obamacare, Jonathan Gruber, stated baldly in 2012 that the wording was carefully crafted the way it was, in order to force more states to set up their own exchanges: If they didn't, their citizens would get no subsidies. ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies Hot Air

So with this in mind, it is very likely that the Supremes will rule that subsidies in states without their own exchanges, are illegal.

The wording of the law is clear... and so is the intent.

Case closed.

I rather think this is somewhat irrelevant though in the grand scheme of things as the legislative hole is easily plugged by congress changing that part of the law. I think it would be suicide for the republicans to block a basic fix like that - the democrats would beat them over the heads with it.

smart republicans won't get led into the trap of "trying to fix it"...bad laws that americans overwhelmingly do NOT want and didn't get any say in, should be repealed...not "fixed"

americans don't want dear leaders "care".

The intent was that all Americans would have access to the exchanges and to the subsidies.

The "intent" was to utilize the Cloward-Pivens strategy to purposely collapse the healthcare system. He almost did it, too.

america does not want obamacare. Brace yourself.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This Rotagilla guy is quite perceptive. Great contribution to the discussion.

 

[Rotagilla]

This Rotagilla guy is quite perceptive. Great contribution to the discussion.

My pleasure. Any time you need something else explained, let me know. I'll try to help you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This Rotagilla guy is quite perceptive. Great contribution to the discussion.

My pleasure. Any time you need something else explained, let me know. I'll try to help you.

Don't wait for me to ask. Please.....wax poetic for the benefit of all. Tell us how the people don't want access to affordable health care! Preach it, brother!

 

[Rotagilla]

This Rotagilla guy is quite perceptive. Great contribution to the discussion.

My pleasure. Any time you need something else explained, let me know. I'll try to help you.

Don't wait for me to ask. Please.....wax poetic for the benefit of all. Tell us how the people don't want access to affordable health care! Preach it, brother!

No..you aren't interested in what I say..you're just another bitter, disappointed hyperpartisan.

There are ample polls of the american people that show disapproval of obamacare and resentment that it was rammed through.

It will probably be defunded and dismantled.