Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Letter of the law versus the Intent of the law. Learn to read between the lines, it's a grownup thing...

 

[toxicmedia]

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.

Wow, you are a huge dreamer pal.

Do we need to start a whole other thread, where I provide examples of righties loving it when the SCOTUS makes decisions that affect laws congress has passed?

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I'd love to be part of that one

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Letter of the law versus the Intent of the law. Learn to read between the lines, it's a grownup thing...

Letter of the law and political correctness or expediency. Learn to read between the lines.

 

[toxicmedia]

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?

Same reason Oregon did, they couldn't make it work from an IT standpoint.

That's all on the computer geeks, not the concept of an exchange

 

[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?

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

Thanks for your reply. Am I right in thinking that there are parts of the ACA that the majority of Americans support. So is it a case that the sensible thing for any future POTUS would be to tweek the ACA rather than get rid of it completely. Surely coverage of pre existing conditions cannot be removed now, morally that would be dreadful and inhumane.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Read between the lines.....

The general welfare clause means your responsible for someone elses every need, want and whim ......

Obviously!

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Supreme Court has dealt the Obama Administration a string of unanimous defeats on plenty of issues in the past. But then they, for the second time in a row, suddenly uphold a law that in its language is for all intents and purposes unconstitutional. Someone, please explain that logic to me? How do you simply ignore the English language to uphold an unconstitutional law? How do you say "you're wrong on everything else, except this law?"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Read between the lines.....

The general welfare clause means your responsible for someone elses every need, want and whim ......

Obviously!

Grownups can see beyond their own needs, like to those of society....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Letter of the law versus the Intent of the law. Learn to read between the lines, it's a grownup thing...

Letter of the law and political correctness or expediency. Learn to read between the lines.

The SC is aware of the politics, and the intent of Congress. Now you know.

 

[OKTexas]

It must be Armageddon! There is much wailing, rending of garments, and gnashing of teeth!

Any bets that the existing State exchanges will disappear within two years?

Good, they aren't necessary. Health Care is a national issue. You know, One Nation Under God right?

When is your delusional mind going to accept the fact that there are no national issues, only State issues and federal issues. The Constitution was supposed to draw very distinct lines between the two. Welcome to post-constitutional America.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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?

Same reason Oregon did, they couldn't make it work from an IT standpoint.

That's all on the computer geeks, not the concept of an exchange

Uhm....no

After Multiple Enrollment Failures, Hawaii Dumps State Obamacare Exchange
While Hawaii enrolled zero individuals and is the worst performing state, it is not alone. Vermont signed up only 97 households, while Rhode Island enrolled just 25 households.

Hawaii’s dismal performance should not be surprising. The website cost taxpayers $205 million but could only enroll 8,592 individuals in year one. Cost to taxpayers per enroll: $23,899.
After Multiple Enrollment Failures Hawaii Dumps State Obamacare Exchange - Katie Pavlich

 

[TemplarKormac]

Like I said, the law will still die:

 

[Billy000]

Haha I love this. I love it when republicans lose. The truth is that if the subsidies were not upheld, republicans would have a serious political headache for 2016. They will never have a viable alternative to ObamaCare.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It must be Armageddon! There is much wailing, rending of garments, and gnashing of teeth!

Any bets that the existing State exchanges will disappear within two years?

Good, they aren't necessary. Health Care is a national issue. You know, One Nation Under God right?

When is your delusional mind going to accept the fact that there are no national issues, only State issues and federal issues. The Constitution was supposed to draw very distinct lines between the two. Welcome to post-constitutional America.

Last time I checked we had something called National Security, or did you miss that part of reality, like most of the rest? Public Health is a national issue, period.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and Wall Street reacts to the news....:

independentmail.com AP News

"The Latest: Hospital stocks rise in response to court ruling"

 

[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

Thanks for your reply. Am I right in thinking that there are parts of the ACA that the majority of Americans support. So is it a case that the sensible thing for any future POTUS would be to tweek the ACA rather than get rid of it completely. Surely coverage of pre existing conditions cannot be removed now, morally that would be dreadful and inhumane.

The "things that Americans support" have little affect on reality for Obamacare policy holders.

Pre-existing condistions cannot be put back in place. It would be political suicide for those who do.

Here is the problem with any changes to Obamacare, which the SCOTUS has prevented.

The ACA has metastasized itself to our industry, you cannot dust off the old systems, policies, procedures, and hire everybody back, who left the industry, and left behind $10.hr customer service people. Those jobs went to the Phillipines and Mexico.

Chaging the way we do business for the ACA has been so traumatic, if they pulled the plug it would be cutting off the head, to cure the headache

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Letter of the law versus the Intent of the law. Learn to read between the lines, it's a grownup thing...

So there's really no reason to write laws down?

 

[TemplarKormac]

...and Wall Street reacts to the news....:

independentmail.com AP News

"The Latest: Hospital stocks rise in response to court ruling"

Yep, those hospitals rely on Federal funding, by the way.

 

[boilermaker55]

Ahh! How utterly refreshing. You! Smarter than the collective Supreme court justices.
Man, why you are you wasting your time on the internet.

The Supreme Court has dealt the Obama Administration a string of unanimous defeats on plenty of issues in the past. But then they, for the second time in a row, suddenly uphold a law that in its language is for all intents and purposes unconstitutional. Someone, please explain that logic to me? How do you simply ignore the English language to uphold an unconstitutional law?

 

[toxicmedia]

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?

Same reason Oregon did, they couldn't make it work from an IT standpoint.

That's all on the computer geeks, not the concept of an exchange

Uhm....no

After Multiple Enrollment Failures, Hawaii Dumps State Obamacare Exchange
While Hawaii enrolled zero individuals and is the worst performing state, it is not alone. Vermont signed up only 97 households, while Rhode Island enrolled just 25 households.

Hawaii’s dismal performance should not be surprising. The website cost taxpayers $205 million but could only enroll 8,592 individuals in year one. Cost to taxpayers per enroll: $23,899.
After Multiple Enrollment Failures Hawaii Dumps State Obamacare Exchange - Katie Pavlich

Wow, you really need to read what you post.

Hawaii and Oregon had trouble with their web sites, and it got too expensive to fix.

An IT PROBLEM.