Appeals court panels issue split decision on Obamacare

[Bird222]

You have to pass this bill to see what is in it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes someone is. Here is a piece of the ruling that I found telling.



Those highlighted parts are wholly ridiculous. Noone believes that Congress didn't intent people in Federal exchanges to receive subsidies. And furthermore, how can they argue that removing the Federal Subsidies doesn't make the ACA unworkable? It's embarrassing when judges haved already decided what outcome they want and then fabricate reasons to get to that outcome. Even read what a Republican staff attorney had to say:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielf...es-it-just-did-a-terrible-job-of-saying-that/

Your are quoting someone else and while you and others can agree or not I'm waiting for a definitive ruling. Just saying "well they really didn't mean that" isn't always good enough. Maybe Congress didn't mean to deprive those on Medicare of access to their diabetic supplies but good luck if you use that defense of you are prosecuted for delivering them. I'll wait and see.

 

[werepossum]

Pretty sure that is how the courts work now a days.

At least they aren't pretending Asian people don't exist at least in this case :\

Yep, seems more and more that's the case. Although one can also look back at things like Dred Scott and say things have gotten better, so maybe it's a crap shoot.

Your are quoting someone else and while you and others can agree or not I'm waiting for a definitive ruling. Just saying "well they really didn't mean that" isn't always good enough. Maybe Congress didn't mean to deprive those on Medicare of access to their diabetic supplies but good luck if you use that defense of you are prosecuted for delivering them. I'll wait and see.

Perhaps it's time to suggest that our Congresscritters actually read the damned bills before they vote on them. Then maybe they would know if what they intend is what the bills say before they enact them into law.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Those highlighted parts are wholly ridiculous. Noone believes that Congress didn't intent people in Federal exchanges to receive subsidies. And furthermore, how can they argue that removing the Federal Subsidies doesn't make the ACA unworkable? It's embarrassing when judges haved already decided what outcome they want and then fabricate reasons to get to that outcome.

The conclusion that the "highlighted parts are wholly ridiculous" is your's and I won't comment on it other than to say I disagree.

As to the bolded, the judges didn't have much to decide nor did they need to fabricate anything. It's both pure and simple: Congress has the constitutional power to enact laws and it has long been held, for reasons obvious to most of us, that their words shall carry considerable weight.

Clearly even to you it must be obvious that if judges could ignore the plain words of Congress and go on to craft their own interpretation ignoring those plain words we would have NOTHING but judicial activism. As is normally the case, judges will remark that if Congress made a mistake they are free to correct it with legislation. And mistakes are not uncommon.

Sometimes errors are made and Congress' intent is so obvious those mistakes can be ignored. E.g., if Congress writes the following:

"Section 2137 Credit for HI purchased on federal and state exchanges:

Paragraph (a) The credit for HI purchased on state exchanges shall be calculated by blah, blah, blah.

Paragraph (b). The credit so determined in (a) for HI purchased on the federal and state exchanges shall be administered by the IRS blah, blah, blah"

In the fictional example I created above I think it clear from Congress' own words that they intended a credit for both fed and state. The mistake/omission in (a) is clearly overruled by the wording in the preceding and following portions. To rule otherwise is to claim that it is the other two in error.

If however the word "federal" was omitted from everywhere in the text I think no matter how you wish it so it can't be reasonably inferred to exist. To rule as if "federal' were there because it makes the policy, in the courts opinion, much better is simple judicial activism.

I suggest that this pretty well sums up the current cases: Which is it?

Fern

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm not sure how the potential for people's health insurance to skyrocket when they lose their subsidies because of a poorly written law passed only by Democrats is a GOP problem. But then, I suck at mental gymnastics. Strike that, I suck at gymnastics in general.

Answer: Because many members of the public will see the health care plan for what it is -- a poor substitute for real socialized medicine and they know that the Republicans ultimately stood in the way of our having socialized medicine. In other words, the blame for the skyrocketing costs will fall on the Republicans' shoulders. At least it would if so many working class people were not brain dead Republicans. ("We don't wants dem gays gettin' married and wimmins having 'bortions, therefore whatever the Democrats do is da work of da Devil!")

 

[WhipperSnapper]

the subsidies came about because your obama care (affordable healthcare act ACA) is unaffordable for most subscribers due to the mandatory package requirements.

It's unaffordable because our highly inefficient privatized medical system is a dysfunctional way of providing health care.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Answer: Because many members of the public will see the health care plan for what it is -- a poor substitute for real socialized medicine and they know that the Republicans ultimately stood in the way of our having socialized medicine. In other words, the blame for the skyrocketing costs will fall on the Republicans' shoulders. At least it would if so many working class people were not brain dead Republicans. ("We don't wants dem gays gettin' married and wimmins having 'bortions, therefore whatever the Democrats do is da work of da Devil!")

I'm confused. How many Republicans voted for ACA?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I love the picture with the guy crying about how his business won't be profitable if he has to pay for health insurance for his employees. Tough shit, you don't have a successful business model then. I'm sure a lot of people could create more successful businesses if we just allowed slave labor again.

To an extent that business owner does have a point. Having to deal with health insurance issues is very expensive. In nations that have real socialized medicine, businesses do not have to worry about insurance issues like American businesses do.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Hey the ACA is better than Canadian healthcare as the ACA requires that women get birth control for free and Canadians have to pay for theirs.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

The law as written by Democrats and voted into the law of the land by Democrats will be enforced as written. America - fuck yea!

...And the Democrats knew they have to cater to the sheeple populace who have been told that suchialized medicine is evil evil evil because its, uhm, suchialized. So they passed what they thought was politically feasible. The Republicans also completely failed to advocate for the real solution, socialized medicine.

You make it sound like the Republicans had a better solution -- either laissez-faire capitalism medicine (half the populace goes without health care and dies) or "Don't get sick, and if you get sick, die quickly."

But...it won't be enforced because dear leader has a pen and a phone. All hail King Obama! He don't need no stinkin' courts.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Why is it up to Republicans to fix a Democrat nightmare? Why wouldn't the onus be right back on Democrats?

The Republicans are elected leaders who are supposed to serve the nation's bests interests and provide the best government possible, um, right?

Or are the Republicans supposed to serve the top 5% while enacting policies to enslave the bottom 95%?

I forget which.

And we've seen how the President goes about "fixing" parts of the law that he doesn't like or wants changed. So again, why would Republicans want to be involved in the clusterfuck known as the ACA or "fixing" it. Seems repeal and replace wouldn't require donning a hazmat suit and jumping into a shit storm. So I'm not surprised the answer is "everything" from Republicans.

The Republicans should offer a better plan if they can come up with one that would provide 100% coverage while lowering the total percentage of GDP spent on health care. (Hint--they have no plan. Their only plan is either laissez faire capitalism medicine (50% of the population dies from treatable ailments) or "Don't get sick, and if you get sick, die quickly."

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm confused. How many Republicans voted for ACA?

How many Republicans advocated for the real solution to our nation's health care problems? Where where the Republicans when we needed a competing plan? Did someone prevent the Republicans from saying:

"We've got an even better idea that will provide 100% coverage, reduce GDP sent on health care, and remove the insurance burden from businesses! You know, every other first world nation has some form of socialized medicine. Why don't we enact a plan like what <France, UK, Taiwan, etc.> has?"

Where were the Republicans when someone needed to offer and back a better plan? The Democrats were working on a plan to reform health care, hey Republicans, where were you? (They were advocating for laissez-faire health care or "Don't get sick and if you get sick, die quickly.")

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Hey the ACA is better than Canadian healthcare as the ACA requires that women get birth control for free and Canadians have to pay for theirs.

LoL. If having to pay for birth control were the cost of having the Canadian system here, then fine, let Americans pay for their own birth control.

Ironically, payments for birth control and abortion actually provide a net cost savings and return-on-investment for the government.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The Republicans knew that no competing plan would be considered by either the HoR or Senate with the Democrats in control and that the Democrats were going to ram their legislation through no matter what.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

How many Republicans advocated for the real solution to our nation's health care problems? Where where the Republicans when we needed a competing plan?

Oh look, diversion!

I always giggle when Democrats throw hissy fits because Republicans didn't jump in line and support their initiatives, as if that is somehow a requirement or expectation. I will remember this the next time a Republican initiative passes without Democrat support and if it doesn't go well, I'll just blame the Democrats for not supporting what the Republicans "really" wanted.

Democrats (or more specifically, their rank and file followers like you) have an issue, and that issue is accountability. Nothing is ever the fault of Democrats. In this instance, we have the ACA -- a bill designed by Democrats, passed entirely by Democrats, and now we may see that it is more expensive than originally thought. Do the Democrat sheep take responsibility and say "We made an error, but we were just doing what we thought was best"? No! Instead, we get "But...but...it's all the Republican's fault!!!!!"

Uh, no, it isn't. If the Democrats wanted socialized medicine, they could've pushed it. Instead, they were more concerned about getting re-elected and even without that particular concern, knew many in their own party didn't support that level of government involvement in healthcare. They likely would not have had the votes. And to blame "sheeple" for not liking "ebil suhciliazed medicine!" is not only arrogant, but counterproductive. Where were the initiatives by the Democrats to sell that plan?

You have completely lost it. Seriously. Your posts used to be thoughtful and filled with good information and now you've devolved into yet another foaming-at-the-mouth lefty buffoon. Let me clue you in:

1. Not a single Republican voted for ACA. The Democrats enacted it anyway. Therefore, to blame Republicans because ACA will do little to stem increasing costs is foolish and illogical. The Republicans "stood in the way" of ACA, the Democrats passed it, and it is all on the Democrats. Likewise, if it works out for the best, the Democrats get the credit.
2. In light of the facts in #1, the Democrats very well could have passed socialized medicine if they wanted to. Your contention that the Democrats "know what's best for people" (I'm paraphrasing) and yet, passed ACA because it was felt that it was the only politically viable solution smacks of arrogance and translates to Democrats just wanting to get re-elected. This is a problem with both parties -- "Let's keep ourselves in office and not do the right thing!"
3. Go ahead and continue supporting the duopoly we have. Both political parties are corrupt, incompetent, and only care about keeping themselves in cushy, high-paying positions.

Also, cut your tired rant of "But...but...where was the Republican plan?" It isn't what we're discussing, I never claimed they had a good plan, and it is nothing but diversion by you.

The Republicans knew that no competing plan would be considered by either the HoR or Senate with the Democrats in control and that the Democrats were going to ram their legislation through no matter what.

The Republican plan was tax credits to allow the purchase of insurance and had no requirements for purchasing insurance and did nothing to control costs -- like the ACA does nothing to control costs.

 

[theeedude]

Republicans are really getting desperate if their big plan to repeal Obamacare is to cut their own constituents away from help buying health insurance. But hey, states are laboratories of Democracy, we can see how states without those subsidies do And laugh at them for cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Republicans are really getting desperate if their big plan to repeal Obamacare is to cut their own constituents away from help buying health insurance. But hey, states are laboratories of Democracy, we can see how states without those subsidies do And laugh at them for cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Do we have a breakdown of the political affiliation of people receiving subsidies in those states? I've not seen one yet, but if one exists, I'd like to see it.

 

[theeedude]

Do we have a breakdown of the political affiliation of people receiving subsidies in those states? I've not seen one yet, but if one exists, I'd like to see it.

No, but this is something GOP may want to find out before pissing those people off
The biggest benefit outside of Medicaid expansion is for lower middle class elderly (but not Medicare eligible yet) folks. A Republican demographic. Plus the subsidy cuts are going to be in Republican non-exchange states, so they are more likely to hit GOP voters.
Should be fun to watch if it happens. It will probably be in the courts until next year, so this would be more of a 2016 issue.

 

[emperus]

The conclusion that the "highlighted parts are wholly ridiculous" is your's and I won't comment on it other than to say I disagree.

As to the bolded, the judges didn't have much to decide nor did they need to fabricate anything. It's both pure and simple: Congress has the constitutional power to enact laws and it has long been held, for reasons obvious to most of us, that their words shall carry considerable weight.

Clearly even to you it must be obvious that if judges could ignore the plain words of Congress and go on to craft their own interpretation ignoring those plain words we would have NOTHING but judicial activism. As is normally the case, judges will remark that if Congress made a mistake they are free to correct it with legislation. And mistakes are not uncommon.

Sometimes errors are made and Congress' intent is so obvious those mistakes can be ignored. E.g., if Congress writes the following:

"Section 2137 Credit for HI purchased on federal and state exchanges:

Paragraph (a) The credit for HI purchased on state exchanges shall be calculated by blah, blah, blah.

Paragraph (b). The credit so determined in (a) for HI purchased on the federal and state exchanges shall be administered by the IRS blah, blah, blah"

In the fictional example I created above I think it clear from Congress' own words that they intended a credit for both fed and state. The mistake/omission in (a) is clearly overruled by the wording in the preceding and following portions. To rule otherwise is to claim that it is the other two in error.

If however the word "federal" was omitted from everywhere in the text I think no matter how you wish it so it can't be reasonably inferred to exist. To rule as if "federal' were there because it makes the policy, in the courts opinion, much better is simple judicial activism.

I suggest that this pretty well sums up the current cases: Which is it?

Fern

You do understand that the the job of the Judicial branch is to interpret and apply the laws that congress passes right?

Did you read the ruling? Has there been any commentator to come out and say that they believed the law didn't intend to cover both state and federal exchanges ? Has there been any commentator that has come out and said that not providing subsidies to Federal exchange does not make the law unworkable? Those were two conclusions that the justices wholly made up.

And, what's worse they made up the 2nd part, that the plain reading of that language does not make the whole law unworkable because then it would force them to have to accept that the plain language (mistake) was obviously a mistake.

It isn't new in American jurisprudence that courts look at the intent of Congress when interpreting the laws. Because as we all know, language changes and mistakes happen. And we all know what the intent of the ACA was. And given both, how can this not be judicial activism?

Or are you arguing that courts don't look at the intent of a law when interpreting them and/or that the ACA wasn't intended to give subsidies to the Federal pool?

But, you know you are making a wholly ridiculous argument. But because of your partisanship are trying to pass it off as it isn't.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

No, but this is something GOP may want to find out before pissing those people off
The biggest benefit outside of Medicaid expansion is for lower middle class elderly (but not Medicare eligible yet) folks. A Republican demographic. Plus the subsidy cuts are going to be in Republican non-exchange states, so they are more likely to hit GOP voters.
Should be fun to watch if it happens. It will probably be in the courts until next year, so this would be more of a 2016 issue.

Words have meaning, and if the Democrats screwed up the wording of the law in such a way that the Republicans have a case, the blame is on the Democrats and the wording needs to be corrected. I mean, most of these idiots (both Republicans and Democrats) are lawyers, right? How could such a careless mistake have been made (if, in fact, one was made)?

In my own state, I see that 100,000 people receive subsidies from the ACA. I haven't found a further breakdown or a map which shows where people receiving those subsidies are at (still looking and I'm open to being corrected), but I'd wager Gary, Ft. Wayne, and Indianapolis have most of those and I'd also wager those folks would primarily vote Democrat. Southern Indiana would probably receive a chunk too and I'd guess those would primarily be Republican voters.

 

[ivwshane]

Stick to taxes buddy I'm pretty sure the courts also look at the intent of the law, which is why the 2nd amendment isn't as clear cut as it should be, it's why judges can say voter ID laws descrimnate and target groups unfairly.

The conclusion that the "highlighted parts are wholly ridiculous" is your's and I won't comment on it other than to say I disagree.

As to the bolded, the judges didn't have much to decide nor did they need to fabricate anything. It's both pure and simple: Congress has the constitutional power to enact laws and it has long been held, for reasons obvious to most of us, that their words shall carry considerable weight.

Clearly even to you it must be obvious that if judges could ignore the plain words of Congress and go on to craft their own interpretation ignoring those plain words we would have NOTHING but judicial activism. As is normally the case, judges will remark that if Congress made a mistake they are free to correct it with legislation. And mistakes are not uncommon.

Sometimes errors are made and Congress' intent is so obvious those mistakes can be ignored. E.g., if Congress writes the following:

"Section 2137 Credit for HI purchased on federal and state exchanges:

Paragraph (a) The credit for HI purchased on state exchanges shall be calculated by blah, blah, blah.

Paragraph (b). The credit so determined in (a) for HI purchased on the federal and state exchanges shall be administered by the IRS blah, blah, blah"

In the fictional example I created above I think it clear from Congress' own words that they intended a credit for both fed and state. The mistake/omission in (a) is clearly overruled by the wording in the preceding and following portions. To rule otherwise is to claim that it is the other two in error.

If however the word "federal" was omitted from everywhere in the text I think no matter how you wish it so it can't be reasonably inferred to exist. To rule as if "federal' were there because it makes the policy, in the courts opinion, much better is simple judicial activism.

I suggest that this pretty well sums up the current cases: Which is it?

Fern

 

[boomerang]

Here's the man termed as the architect of Obamacare. When questioned now, he states that it is a typo but he's on video saying in 2012 that ONLY state exchanges are eligible for subsidies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbD5iQQS5KA

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the intent of the law was to punish certain states. It has now backfired. I'm not losing any sleep over it. This regime is hell bent on punishing its enemies, either real or perceived. The DOJ seeks out political enemies for scrutiny and prosecution. I have days when I hope a Republican majority controlled government adopts not just the same tactics, but intensifies them dramatically. It's wrong on so many levels but you know the old saying, nice guys finish last.

Where does this stop?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You have completely lost it. Seriously. Your posts used to be thoughtful and filled with good information and now you've devolved into yet another foaming-at-the-mouth lefty buffoon.

Not really, but I no longer put much effort into debating on these forums. I like to make my comments and move on without writing in-depth posts. I could put forth more thoughtful posts if I wanted to, but I don't feel like it.

1. Not a single Republican voted for ACA. The Democrats enacted it anyway. Therefore, to blame Republicans because ACA will do little to stem increasing costs is foolish and illogical. The Republicans "stood in the way" of ACA, the Democrats passed it, and it is all on the Democrats. Likewise, if it works out for the best, the Democrats get the credit.

We get that. But why didn't the Republicans advocate a better plan? The alternative to the ACA was...the status quo?

2. In light of the facts in #1, the Democrats very well could have passed socialized medicine if they wanted to.

It would have required changes to the Constitution and possibly the purchase or seizure of hospitals from private entities. An overwhelming majority of Congress would have needed to be on board.

Your contention that the Democrats "know what's best for people" (I'm paraphrasing) and yet, passed ACA because it was felt that it was the only politically viable solution smacks of arrogance and translates to Democrats just wanting to get re-elected. This is a problem with both parties -- "Let's keep ourselves in office and not do the right thing!"

I'm really not a fan of the Democrats. They're just less-worse than the alternative political party.

3. Go ahead and continue supporting the duopoly we have. Both political parties are corrupt, incompetent, and only care about keeping themselves in cushy, high-paying positions.

I agree. They both suck.

Also, cut your tired rant of "But...but...where was the Republican plan?" It isn't what we're discussing, I never claimed they had a good plan, and it is nothing but diversion by you.

Many people in the thread have alluded to the notion that the Republicans would have handled things better or that the Republicans are going to have to fix this mess.

The Republican plan was tax credits to allow the purchase of insurance and had no requirements for purchasing insurance and did nothing to control costs -- like the ACA does nothing to control costs.

In other words, they didn't really have a plan.

 

[theeedude]

Words have meaning, and if the Democrats screwed up the wording of the law in such a way that the Republicans have a case, the blame is on the Democrats and the wording needs to be corrected. I mean, most of these idiots (both Republicans and Democrats) are lawyers, right? How could such a careless mistake have been made (if, in fact, one was made)?

In my own state, I see that 100,000 people receive subsidies from the ACA. I haven't found a further breakdown or a map which shows where people receiving those subsidies are at (still looking and I'm open to being corrected), but I'd wager Gary, Ft. Wayne, and Indianapolis have most of those and I'd also wager those folks would primarily vote Democrat. Southern Indiana would probably receive a chunk too and I'd guess those would primarily be Republican voters.

Agreed on the bolded. They could fix it today and move on. But are Republicans going to allow that to happen or are they more interested in blame and playing gotcha than fixing the problem? I guess their constituents will find out. Our state has exchange, so we are just going to watch and see if GOP can get out of its own way. By the time this goes through the courts, election season will be over, hopefully they can move on with their life and find something else to work on other than screwing their constituents out of a subsidy to blame Democrats.

 

[theeedude]

Here's the man termed as the architect of Obamacare. When questioned now, he states that it is a typo but he's on video saying in 2012 that ONLY state exchanges are eligible for subsidies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbD5iQQS5KA

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the intent of the law was to punish certain states. It has now backfired. I'm not losing any sleep over it. This regime is hell bent on punishing its enemies, either real or perceived. The DOJ seeks out political enemies for scrutiny and prosecution. I have days when I hope a Republican majority controlled government adopts not just the same tactics, but intensifies them dramatically. It's wrong on so many levels but you know the old saying, nice guys finish last.

Where does this stop?

Republicans are the ones suing to make sure their states get punished.