Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies

[bravoactual]

So many pissed Cons, oh dear.....oh my....oh who gives a shit anyway.

YOU ******* LOST.

Get over it.

Just to remind you ConJobs this is a Conservative Court.

YOU ******* LOST.

YOU ******* LOST.

YOU ******* LOST.

YOU ******* LOST..

A gentle reminder also, Same Sex Marriage is up next. When that falls I will go to my Lesbian Next Door Neighbors and have glass of Bubbly with them. They have 2-month old daughter.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It would only take 2 days. Just add two words (and Federal) to clarify the existing law. Republicans gambled they could get the Supreme Court to invalidate the subsidy so they could **** up other portions of the law...they lost

Big time. Happy days...

 

[rightwinger]

Is it my imagination...or do the true colors of righties always come out when the SCOTUS rules against them?

Of course they do on election night, when Obama won...

It's like "Romney by a landlside" all over again

Sad really

They loved the Supreme Court so much when they got Bush elected

This is why it is pointless to argue with you, because you believe silly myths like this one long after they've been utterly debunked. That's because you never read the other side.

We want courts to follow the law, let the chips fall where they may. That's called the rule of law.

The Supreme Court didn't rule in favor of Bush in 2000? Maybe you should let Gore know

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

First you need to get your facts straight, subsidies were provided for State exchanges, one of the architects of the law (Gruber) admitted the federal exchange was intentionally left out of the subsidy scheme in order to force States to establish exchanges. The supremes ignored black letter law and one of the authors of the law verifying there was no oversight, to allow subsidies for the federal exchange. It was on its face, a bad political decision and a horrendous legal decision.

Yep. Exactly.

Gruber recanted his brain fart. He's a gadfly. You've got nothing.

Of course he did. The Progs are quite facile liars. Just look at Obama and the Clintons.

Horse patoot. Such as? And no irrelevant gossip, please... Nothing to compare with Saddam's "mushroom clouds", how Barney caused Bush's world depression, death panels and ridiculous insurer proposals as facts, etc etc. Actually, just about everything they say...

Hitting the home brewed Rye a tad early today, aintcha, bub?

I thought it was bathtub gin? With extra wood alcohol....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Is it my imagination...or do the true colors of righties always come out when the SCOTUS rules against them?

Of course they do on election night, when Obama won...

It's like "Romney by a landlside" all over again

Sad really

They loved the Supreme Court so much when they got Bush elected

This is why it is pointless to argue with you, because you believe silly myths like this one long after they've been utterly debunked. That's because you never read the other side.

We want courts to follow the law, let the chips fall where they may. That's called the rule of law.

The Supreme Court didn't rule in favor of Bush in 2000? Maybe you should let Gore know

He'll be rather surprised since he won but they gave it to Bush anyway...

 

[Vandalshandle]

How the hell do dems think we're going to pay for this monstrosity?
We'll be 20 trillion in debt by the time obama leaves office as it is.
Taxes are going to sky rocket for the middle class making it even more difficult to pay the ridiculous out of pocket expenses for medical care.
I expect a shitload of people to renounce their citizenship in the coming years and getting the **** out of here with some of their savings intact.
I know I'm going to be one of them.

Bon Voyage!

Be ready to repeat that continuously for years to come as the major tax payers bailout. You progressives have already ran off businesses with your high taxes,expect those who can afford it to leave as well.
You can expect good times paying for all those entitlements when half the country works for min wage.

Actually, you conservatives have been sending our jobs out of the country for decades. This is the only country that expects employers to pay 50% to 75% of the costs of employee health insurance. Ford has been paying more for health insurance per car produced than they pay for steel per car produced since 1977. This is the reason that a train runs up the Santa Cruse Valley every other night loaded with Fords assembled in Nogales, Mexico.

Companies paying for part or all of their employees healthcare had nothing to do with it.
Actually companies would say you werent getting a raise due to the cost of healthcare...now that they arent going to be paying for it do you actually think you're going to get a raise? Nope,in fact your healthcare costs went up because you now pay for all of it and obamacare is damn expensive,and your wages are going down because they are importing foreign workers.
And of course you fucken fools eat it up and ask for seconds.
You idiots will never learn that nothing is free.

I am really sorry that your grapes turned sour. I was just at Safeway last night, and they have some tasty ones!

 

[nicolondon]

So is this the end of the road for any more challenges to the ACA? Another question will GOP Presidential challengers be putting forward alternatives to the ACA or will they clarify what they want to change. Its all well and good having a problem with something but surely unless you can put forward viable alternatives then your argument loses some of its validity. As an onlooker from afar I'm still trying to get my head around why ACA has been so divisive, surely anything that expands health coverage and covers existing conditions can only help Americans. Am I missing something? Putting peoples politics aside and viewing this just objectively what exactly are the big problems with the ACA?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Subsidies ?

Thats when someone else pays for your obligation right ?

 

[toxicmedia]

When the court ignores black letter law, we're all in trouble.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.

Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.

Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.

And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.

States found out setting up the exchanges would bankrupt them. Big shock

That didn't happen in any of the states that set up exchanges

Of the 3 dozen states that go through the fed... It is because if they didn't...They couldn't afford the low premiums offered to the public and would have to hike prices to compensate. Plus ...the millions to set up their own exchanges.

I'm sorry, are you high?

The red states that don't offer exchanges are the states that have Republican Governors.

That's the only reason the red states don't do it

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obamacare is dead anyway. Don't expect those states to continue using the federal exchanges. This Supreme Court shows that we cannot simply trust the simple and strict interpretation of the law.

 

[BlueGin]

States found out setting up the exchanges would bankrupt them. Big shock

That didn't happen in any of the states that set up exchanges

Of the 3 dozen states that go through the fed... It is because if they didn't...They couldn't afford the low premiums offered to the public and would have to hike prices to compensate. Plus ...the millions to set up their own exchanges.

Actually, they were butthurt over Obamacare and were willing to punish their own constituents if it meant getting back at Obama

Must be why they were planning a 2 year extension on subsidies while they figured out a fix to the problem. Try again.

You do realize only 13 states have their own exchanges...yes?

2 years?

It would only take 2 days. Just add two words (and Federal) to clarify the existing law. Republicans gambled they could get the Supreme Court to invalidate the subsidy so they could **** up other portions of the law...they lost

The plan was to set up state exchanges. Not slap an easy fix to build on the loop holes in a crap bill.

Libs do everything half assed ...that's why your ideas fail.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The red states that don't offer exchanges are the states that have Republican Governors.

So, that means the law will die anyway.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Subsidies ?

Thats when someone else pays for your obligation right ?

Crops, water, energy, oil, livestock, weapons, etc., get used to it...

 

[rightwinger]

 

[BlueGin]

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.

Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.

Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.

And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.

States found out setting up the exchanges would bankrupt them. Big shock

That didn't happen in any of the states that set up exchanges

Of the 3 dozen states that go through the fed... It is because if they didn't...They couldn't afford the low premiums offered to the public and would have to hike prices to compensate. Plus ...the millions to set up their own exchanges.

I'm sorry, are you high?

The red states that don't offer exchanges are the states that have Republican Governors.

That's the only reason the red states don't do it

Only 13 out of 50 states have their own exchanges. Too expensive for both the insured and the state governments.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.

And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.

States found out setting up the exchanges would bankrupt them. Big shock

That didn't happen in any of the states that set up exchanges

Of the 3 dozen states that go through the fed... It is because if they didn't...They couldn't afford the low premiums offered to the public and would have to hike prices to compensate. Plus ...the millions to set up their own exchanges.

I'm sorry, are you high?

The red states that don't offer exchanges are the states that have Republican Governors.

That's the only reason the red states don't do it

Only 13 out of 50 states have their own exchanges. Too expensive for both the insured and the state governments.

So, dump 'em. It's a national issue, they aren't necessary...

 

[toxicmedia]

So is this the end of the road for any more challenges to the ACA? Another question will GOP Presidential challengers be putting forward alternatives to the ACA or will they clarify what they want to change. Its all well and good having a problem with something but surely unless you can put forward viable alternatives then your argument loses some of its validity. As an onlooker from afar I'm still trying to get my head around why ACA has been so divisive, surely anything that expands health coverage and covers existing conditions can only help Americans. Am I missing something? Putting peoples politics aside and viewing this just objectively what exactly are the big problems with the ACA?

I can answer that.

The process of enrollment and reenrollment has issues that need to be addressed surrounding the applied tax credit assessment, verification, and 1095-A form accuracy.

Providers in red states are apprehensive to accept Obamacare plans, some for political reasons, and some for financial reasons, so the lower cost the plan, the narrower the provider network will be,

Those are the two biggest headaches for Obamacare policy holders

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't see how the court could simply ignore the English language simply to uphold the law. "Exchange established by the state" meant exactly that. These people are scared.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Wheres that high speed rail tax we so desperately need ! Lol

 

[SassyIrishLass]

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last that SCOTUS considers the intent of the law and not just the letter of law. It should be clear to everyone that Congress did not intent for people to be denied health insurance because they applied through a state exchange operating under federal guidance instead of a federal exchange as specified in the law. The intent of law was to provide additional healthcare coverage, not less.

Had SCOTUS ruled against subsidies for those on state exchanges, it would have created chaos in healthcare insurance as the federal exchange attempted add 26 states.

Oh, just hogwash. The Democrats simply never dreamed that 34 states would refuse to set up exchanges. They thought that threat and carrot of federal subsidies would lead nearly all states, or all states, to set up exchanges. Presumably Democrats can read and write. The laws says in plain English that subsidies only go to states with exchanges. That was supposed to be carrot/stick that would get states to set up exchanges.

And you keep talking about "providing people with health care," but Obamacare has caused millions of people to lose their health care and many others to pay substantially higher premiums because they're forced to buy gold-plated policies.

States found out setting up the exchanges would bankrupt them. Big shock

That didn't happen in any of the states that set up exchanges

Of the 3 dozen states that go through the fed... It is because if they didn't...They couldn't afford the low premiums offered to the public and would have to hike prices to compensate. Plus ...the millions to set up their own exchanges.

I'm sorry, are you high?

The red states that don't offer exchanges are the states that have Republican Governors.

That's the only reason the red states don't do it

So why did Hawaii decide to get rid of the exchange?