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

[Roadrunner]

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trap of "trying to fix it"...bad laws that americans overwhelmingly do NOT want and didn't get any say in, should be repealed...not "fixed"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 that the dependent class would get another freebie from the producers.

Why the fuck can't you people be honest?

 

[Rotagilla]

apparently sign ups aren't enough to sustain the scam...It'll either collapse and/or be defunded and repealed.

You can only sell quarters for a nickel for so long until the pyramid collapses and you're out of business.

obama wanted to create a "problem" that the government could "solve" with "legislation"...except every "solution" makes the problem worse until the whole system is paralyzed and malfunctioning.

Cloward-Pivens in action.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Bullshit.


The US is a behemoth welfare/warfare police state thanks to the Supreme "Court".


.

 

[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.

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...

Please cite examples.
I am all for full repeal. But I recognize that isnt likely to happen before 2016.

 

[Darkwind]

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!

If people want affordable access, as you say, then they have awoken to the fact that Obamacare doesn't provide them that.

 

[Little-Acorn]

BTW, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case over the provision in Obamacare that says subsidies can only be given to states that set up their own exchanges. (36 of them have declined to set up those exchanges.)

With one of the Obamacare architects (Jonathan Gruber) stating flatly and publicly that the law was deliberately written that way to force states to set up exchanges, the case should be a slam dunk. Bye-bye subsidies in those 36 states... which means bye-bye to the main reason Obamacare was passed: to take money from people who earn more, and give it to people who earn less.

 

[TooTall]

[
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.

I thought it was a tax.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

[
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.

I thought it was a tax.

You're in good company, so did Congress...

 

[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.

I thought it was a tax.

It's an entitlement funded by a tax. But you already knew that.

 

[TooTall]

[
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.

I thought it was a tax.

It's an entitlement funded by a tax. But you already knew that.

I thought it was a health insurance program funded by a tax. I have had health insurance all of my adult life and considered it a necessity, not an entitlement. Of course the word tax wasn't allowed until that was White House lawyers found that was the only way to get it deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

[TooTall]

[
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.

I thought it was a tax.

You're in good company, so did Congress

Only the Republicans. The Democrats got gruberized.

 

[Judicial review]

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.

Exactly. Doomed. Fucked. Blown up, bombed, gassed, sucked dry, burnt, torched, flushed, torn apart, butt fucked, pissed on, burried, stabbed in the heart, strangled, decapitated.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I thought it was a tax.

It's an entitlement funded by a tax. But you already knew that.

I thought it was a health insurance program funded by a tax. I have had health insurance all of my adult life and considered it a necessity, not an entitlement. Of course the word tax wasn't allowed until that was White House lawyers found that was the only way to get it deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Then you would be incorrect. The ACA is not a health insurance program. There actually is no 'Obamacare' plan. you cant get Obamacare because the plan does not exist. It is a program that forces you to purchase a plan from a commercial company and then gives you a government subsidy to pay for it if you make less than X dollars (IOW, an entitlement program) that is paid from various other taxes. There is, of course, a lot more to what it does but that is what is pertinent to the program being a tax funded entitlement.

The subsidy is why this is an entitlement program and it is the subsidy that makes this giant permanent.

 

[TooTall]

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.

I thought it was a tax.

It's an entitlement funded by a tax. But you already knew that.

I thought it was a health insurance program funded by a tax. I have had health insurance all of my adult life and considered it a necessity, not an entitlement. Of course the word tax wasn't allowed until that was White House lawyers found that was the only way to get it deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Then you would be incorrect. The ACA is not a health insurance program. There actually is no 'Obamacare' plan. you cant get Obamacare because the plan does not exist. It is a program that forces you to purchase a plan from a commercial company and then gives you a government subsidy to pay for it if you make less than X dollars (IOW, an entitlement program) that is paid from various other taxes. There is, of course, a lot more to what it does but that is what is pertinent to the program being a tax funded entitlement.

The subsidy is why this is an entitlement program and it is the subsidy that makes this giant permanent.

What you call entitlement to those that get subsidies I call a giveaway of tax payers money to buy high deductible health insurance plans. Obamacare is funded by raising the health insurance rates of those in the middle class as well as dozens of other taxes, most of which are paid by the middle class.

 

[g5000]

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.

And if the Supremes decide the subsidies are legal, you will come back here and say "Case closed" again, right?


You know, Congress could easily make those subsidies unequivocally legal. It would take them five minutes.

Hmmm...I wonder why the House hasn't done that. I guess they must enjoy forcing one constitutional crisis after another, eh?

 

[g5000]

The GOP writes a spending bill which hacks away at Medicare renumerations back in the 90s, and every year or so since then they find a way to write and pass a "doc fix". Because, you know, the spending bill was broken and needed fixing, right? They had to pass it to see what was in it.

Then the GOP writes a bunch of "Bush tax cuts" into law. Then, every year after they were set to expire, they somehow found a way to pass an extension. Because, you know, the Bush tax cuts needed fixing.

But when it comes to writing and passing a patch for health insurance subsidies, they run to court instead!

See how that shit works?

You rubes are being grubered by the GOP.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I thought it was a tax.

It's an entitlement funded by a tax. But you already knew that.

I thought it was a health insurance program funded by a tax. I have had health insurance all of my adult life and considered it a necessity, not an entitlement. Of course the word tax wasn't allowed until that was White House lawyers found that was the only way to get it deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Then you would be incorrect. The ACA is not a health insurance program. There actually is no 'Obamacare' plan. you cant get Obamacare because the plan does not exist. It is a program that forces you to purchase a plan from a commercial company and then gives you a government subsidy to pay for it if you make less than X dollars (IOW, an entitlement program) that is paid from various other taxes. There is, of course, a lot more to what it does but that is what is pertinent to the program being a tax funded entitlement.

The subsidy is why this is an entitlement program and it is the subsidy that makes this giant permanent.

What you call entitlement to those that get subsidies I call a giveaway of tax payers money to buy high deductible health insurance plans. Obamacare is funded by raising the health insurance rates of those in the middle class as well as dozens of other taxes, most of which are paid by the middle class.

What you want to call it because you don't like it is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that it is a subsidy and people don't like giving up cash from the government. The program was (IMHO) specifically designed to give as many people as possible some sort of subsidy so that it would be completely entrenched. They succeeded. It wouldn't even matter if HC plans skyrocketed and coverage decreased - people would still see the subsidy they get and scream if you even remotely talk about cutting that 'giveaway' off. It is why any program that gives significant number of people money cannot be effectively reformed. We have mounds of evidence all over the place.

 

[BluesLegend]

ACA blew up in Dem's faces demolishing their party, now they are crying in their beer. It must suck when your biggest win in 6 years is loathed and hated and constantly attacked. lol