Suit In Oklahoma Could Knock Out ObamaCare

[JakeStarkey]

State authorities cannot change federal law.

Internet liberals shouldn't pretend to be conservatives

Righty Reactionaries should not pretend to be mainstream Republicans.

 

[eflatminor]

State authorities cannot change federal law.

The federal law makes no provision for subsidies for those using the federal exchange...that's the point. Without those subsidies, the house of cards collapses.

The state has no standing to challenge the provisions of the law. That is the point.

Judge Ronald White of the U.S. District Court disagrees with you too.

But I'm sure YOU know better...

 

[mamooth]

This time, the ACA is doomed for sure! Really! It's not like all the other times!

 

[ogibillm]

so they win the suit and what happens? those states that decided not to set up exchanges just fucked over their citizens.

gee, awesome outcome guys.

are you not content with giving control of the federal government back to democrats and want to throw the state house in on the deal as well?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

DUDE! Rep. Sean Duffy SCHOOLS Andrea Mitchell on fairness under Obamacare, even throws Jon Stewart in her face » The Right Scoop -

Schooled *****.

 

[eflatminor]

This time, the ACA is doomed for sure! Really! It's not like all the other times!

You are correct, this is not like all the other times. As I stated in the OP, "Unlike the suit brought by 26 state attorneys general, this lawsuit does not make a constitutional objection to the Affordable Care Act." This suit deals with the absence of any provision in the law to provide subsidies to those in the FEDERAL exchanges. It is a completely new take on the issue. Ironic that in your snarkiness, your are actually correct!

 

[eflatminor]

so they win the suit and what happens?

The house of cards collapses as no one in a state without a local exchange can legally qualify for subsidies.

 

[ogibillm]

so they win the suit and what happens?

The house of cards collapses as no one in a state without a local exchange can legally qualify for subsidies.

again - what does that mean? 'the house of cards collapses'?

to me all it means is those republican state houses that outlawed setting up exchanges have fucked over their citizens. again.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Hopefully but doubtful.

 

[eflatminor]

so they win the suit and what happens?

The house of cards collapses as no one in a state without a local exchange can legally qualify for subsidies.

again - what does that mean? 'the house of cards collapses'?

to me all it means is those republican state houses that outlawed setting up exchanges have fucked over their citizens. again.

It means repeal and replace or defunding becomes far more probable, which would be a very good thing.

 

[ogibillm]

The house of cards collapses as no one in a state without a local exchange can legally qualify for subsidies.

again - what does that mean? 'the house of cards collapses'?

to me all it means is those republican state houses that outlawed setting up exchanges have fucked over their citizens. again.

It means repeal and replace or defunding becomes far more probable, which would be a very good thing.

and not amendment?

i mean all the states would have to do to ease the problem for their citizens would be to start up an exchange. problem solved.

and if they didn't fix it by starting the exchanges why wouldn't the state populations just drive out the gop lawmakers that refuse?

 

[ron4342]

This time, the ACA is doomed for sure! Really! It's not like all the other times!

Where is Orly Taitz when we really need her.

 

[g5000]

The house of cards collapses as no one in a state without a local exchange can legally qualify for subsidies.

again - what does that mean? 'the house of cards collapses'?

to me all it means is those republican state houses that outlawed setting up exchanges have fucked over their citizens. again.

It means repeal and replace or defunding becomes far more probable, which would be a very good thing.

No. It means the citizens who do not have state exchanges will throw the assholes out on the street who are preventing their states from having exchanges.

And then when all those red state legislatures turn blue, they will redraw Congressional districts.

 

[g5000]

A 30 second issue ad will point out to the people their state legislators fucked them in the ass by not establishing a state health insurance exchange.

 

[politicalnot]

This will be a major issue in the future. My research on this Judge White shows that his decision probably won't go far, whatever it may be. I guess they would have to rewrite all IRS code as well since it wouldn't apply to the states after an adverse decision would be made.

 

[eflatminor]

again - what does that mean? 'the house of cards collapses'?

to me all it means is those republican state houses that outlawed setting up exchanges have fucked over their citizens. again.

It means repeal and replace or defunding becomes far more probable, which would be a very good thing.

and not amendment?

Possible. Doubtful, but possible. At least that would a Constitutionally acceptable way of allowing the federal government to meddle in healthcare.

Personally, I don't believe that would be necessary...or helpful to getting healthcare costs down.

i mean all the states would have to do to ease the problem for their citizens would be to start up an exchange. problem solved.

Possible. But again, doubtful. Remember, the law is massively unpopular...and with good reason.

and if they didn't fix it by starting the exchanges why wouldn't the state populations just drive out the gop lawmakers that refuse?

Because these are the same states that stand against Obamacare.

 

[eflatminor]

again - what does that mean? 'the house of cards collapses'?

to me all it means is those republican state houses that outlawed setting up exchanges have fucked over their citizens. again.

It means repeal and replace or defunding becomes far more probable, which would be a very good thing.

No. It means the citizens who do not have state exchanges will throw the assholes out on the street who are preventing their states from having exchanges.

And then when all those red state legislatures turn blue, they will redraw Congressional districts.

You have some evidence that Obamacare is desired by the people of those states?

Wishful thinking my collectivist friend...

 

[eflatminor]

This will be a major issue in the future. My research on this Judge White shows that his decision probably won't go far, whatever it may be.

You could be right, I can't say. I guess we'll see.

I guess they would have to rewrite all IRS code as well since it wouldn't apply to the states after an adverse decision would be made

My guess is they don't have the votes for that. Not even close.

 

[velvtacheeze]

I love how conservatives are convinced that liberals are going to give up on making healthcare a right, paid for by taxes. We're not. Single payer is the ultimate goal, and I don't know any liberal who thinks we won't one day get it.

 

[g5000]

It means repeal and replace or defunding becomes far more probable, which would be a very good thing.

No. It means the citizens who do not have state exchanges will throw the assholes out on the street who are preventing their states from having exchanges.

And then when all those red state legislatures turn blue, they will redraw Congressional districts.

You have some evidence that Obamacare is desired by the people of those states?

Wishful thinking my collectivist friend...

The federal web site crashed due to high traffic. There's your "desire", fool. Those were all people from states which do not have exchanges. The evidence is right in front of your willfully blind face.

The GOP has just provided hours of issue ad fodder to the Democrats on a silver platter.