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

[TooTall]

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.

316,000, 000 people includes children under 18, convicted felons, non-citizens and a lot of other people that are ineligible to vote. NEXT!

 

[TooTall]

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!

Now, to wax poetic, how many people do you intend to buy affordable health care for?

 

[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.

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.

The exchanges are working, in case you missed it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did Rotagilla just downgrade his prediction to "probably"?

Yes. I believe he did.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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?

If that motherfucking Roberts rewrites that section too, then it's time to head to DC with pitchforks and torches.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

You never would say that during a democrat win, would you?

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

If that motherfucking Roberts rewrites that section too, then it's time to head to DC with pitchforks and torches.

Yeah? Finally!!!!!!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

They can't rewrite it. Roberts should be in Leavenworth.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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.

the doctors here in idaho said emergency room care wasn't that big a deal, especially compared to what we have now

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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!

The American people reject the notion that Obamacare is affordable. It's just another misnamed Bill put out by democrats.

 

[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!

The American people reject the notion that Obamacare is affordable. It's just another misnamed Bill put out by democrats.

Precisely..Well said.

 

[Votto]

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.

So are we to believe that people not showing up to vote does not send an equally chilling message?

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

Do you have any evidence that this occurred?

 

[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.

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".

Then those 'smart' republicans will be drummed out of office.

The reality here is that the ACA is an entitlement program through and through. You understand that entitlement programs simply don't disappear. Why do you think it is almost impossible to reform Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid?

The option here is for Republicans to ignore Obamacare and send some 'repeal' bills up that are sure a veto and watch people get stuck with an even worse situation OR plug that hole. The democrats WILL NOT be blamed for the hole, of that I am sure. Who you think is at fault for the mess is utterly irrelevant (true or not) and who the American people are going to look to solve it is. They will put dems in office in 2 years if the republicans allow something like that to stick around and then they will fix it. They can continue with the replacement drum beat - that's fine - but they cannot ignore real problems in the mean time.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

So are we to believe that people not showing up to vote does not send an equally chilling message?

Nope - not the same message at all because as long as people continue to do that they are winning. If more people do that they are winning. if virtually everyone does that they STILL win.

Now the growth of third party votes - THAT is different because it represents a challenge. As those votes grow, their chances of winning lessen.

 

[Little-Acorn]

[
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.

Uh-huh. And I'm sure the newly-elected House and Senate will be eager to make changes to Obamacare to allow it to continue as it presently is.

(snicker)

 

[FA_Q2]

[
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.

Uh-huh. And I'm sure the newly-elected House and Senate will be eager to make changes to Obamacare to allow it to continue as it presently is.

(snicker)

Yes they will.

Unless you think the republicans would like to sink themselves. The entitlement is already here - nothing that can be done about it. See what happens when republicans deny 'poor people' their entitlement. 2016 will be a massacre. Then the dems can ride in as saviors.

 

[The Rabbi]

[
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.

Uh-huh. And I'm sure the newly-elected House and Senate will be eager to make changes to Obamacare to allow it to continue as it presently is.

(snicker)

Yes they will.

Unless you think the republicans would like to sink themselves. The entitlement is already here - nothing that can be done about it. See what happens when republicans deny 'poor people' their entitlement. 2016 will be a massacre. Then the dems can ride in as saviors.

How is a bill drafted and passed by Democrats going to damage Republicans?
No, once they go back in to make this change to Obamacare it opens the door for other changes as well. Like a wholesale replacement with something that will actually work.
At a minimum the bill to fix the state exchange business will repeal the medical device ta and, repeal the penalty for not signing up. It will get bipartisan support and Congress will override Obozo's veto if he's stupid enough to go there.

 

[FA_Q2]

[
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.

Uh-huh. And I'm sure the newly-elected House and Senate will be eager to make changes to Obamacare to allow it to continue as it presently is.

(snicker)

Yes they will.

Unless you think the republicans would like to sink themselves. The entitlement is already here - nothing that can be done about it. See what happens when republicans deny 'poor people' their entitlement. 2016 will be a massacre. Then the dems can ride in as saviors.

How is a bill drafted and passed by Democrats going to damage Republicans?
No, once they go back in to make this change to Obamacare it opens the door for other changes as well. Like a wholesale replacement with something that will actually work.
At a minimum the bill to fix the state exchange business will repeal the medical device ta and, repeal the penalty for not signing up. It will get bipartisan support and Congress will override Obozo's veto if he's stupid enough to go there.

Really?

You honestly have to ask how a democrat bill will hurt the republicans. It happens ALL the time. That is noting new at all. People blame whoever points the biggest finger and leaving Obamacare out there to flounder without addressing OBVIOUS flaws are going to make the republicans easy fodder for the president to beat on.

Then there is the small fact that repealing the medical device tax is precisely one of those fixes. It seems you want them to put in some fixes but don't...

 

[Roadrunner]

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?

Roberts will again be reminded of his shady adoption of a child, and vote accordingly.