Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Charlotte Pats Fan, Jul 22, 2014.
Should have read the law before they passed it .
I expect an en banc ruling to follow, and for this decision to be reversed.
This entire Obamacare crap is a huge fiasco. the government could have simply expanded Medicare availability and health insurance for the poor to include more people. They would have raised taxes to do it but that really does not differ from paying higher premiums anyways. Forcing people to buy insurance and insurance they do not need is wrong.
The government could have removed restrictions on insurance companies selling insurance across state lines and they could have altered and strengthened the rules stating that people must be covered by new policies when losing the old.
Of course when you write a law behinf closed doors ... without debate on the House floor in full view of the american public what did we expect. This is reason #1 why the democrats lost the House 2 years later - corruption of the highest order.
The Obama people have changed the rules voted on by Congress without having the ACA amended by Congress. This is exactly why Boehner has sued Obama who thinks he is above the law of the country. We are a democracy ... we must strive to remain one.
Oh happy day another "victory" for the GOP now they can take away eligibility for about 5 or 55million people, so when they go to a hospital, the hospital can absorb the cost instead of the insurance company...
A very happy day, filled with joy.... that "rebranding" is working well....
By the way, this is about as clear a demonstration of judicial activism as you'll see. You know, that practice only liberal judges are guilty of.
yeah ... another thread you comment in without knowing the facts jack ... nothing new for you.
The subsidies in states that do not have exchanges are illegal ...
then again when they wrote it behind closed doors they knew there were parts that would not be legal.
Bring the ACA before Congress and amend it and discuss it on the floor in full view of the American public and get it right ... that is how our system was designed.
I guarantee you I am more well versed in the facts than you are.
National Assn. of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife (2007)
Now tell me what facts you have to bring to the table. You know, beyond your nonsensical conjecture that they wrote it behind closed doors because they knew parts wouldn't be legal. Did that even make sense to you when you wrote it?
Right here Jack: Guess you are not versed as well as you thought.
Of course I knew that the instant you typed your veiled insult my way.
Dick Cheney showed us how to do it when he commissioned the Energy Study in 2001 and met behind closed doors with all of the OIl Big Wigs, and then they all got 6 billion dollars in subsidies... and then they passed favorable legislation and never saw the report, which is still secret to this day.
I know the standards for Obama are somehow different and we judge him by a different set of standards... the reality is that Obamacare is working and making a positive difference in many people's lives..
As a conservative judges made this decision is that called an "Activist Court".....
Perhaps you should avail yourself to the Supreme Court decision I cited. Then you'd understand why this is an activist ruling and why what you posted isn't relevant to that fact.
You have trouble with the laws as written in this country Darryl?
apples and oranges .............. I did read it.
So you read a 48 page legal decision in roughly ten minutes?
Please explain, specifically, how the precedent established in that case does not apply here.
You're banking on intent Jack and this case is a state's rights issue ... your case was not ... if the law (ACA) had gone through the proper channels and not been written behind closed doors ... then it would have went to conference committee, there the messy drafting gets cleaned up. But they wanted to ram this law through and bully their way with it after.
The federal court ruled today that the language of the law is important and more so than intent.
but that's how that congress worked Jack ... it's also why the american public ended it.
The law and process do matter ... not in your partisan eyes but whatever to some of us it does.
Now your side has a huge problem ... if they challenge this on the text of the law then all the other language Obama sought to change after is in peril ... such is life when people think they are above the laws of the land.
How much an utter failure that these blowhards would think a carrot on a stick approach would work in a bill voted upon by congress ... amazing balls. The states stood up for their rights ... I know ... states rights is a huge problem for democrats who prefer authoritarian rule from DC.
This from 6 months ago predicted today's outcome:
Oh that Congress thing ... a huge impediment to Obama and his clan.
It does not pertain as the case you cited was the resolution of a dispute between two conflicting federal statutes. There is no conflicting statute in this case. The law, unfortunately, states that subsidiaries are via state run exchanges. If there were additional language in a subsequent statute that allowed for discretionary subsidies via the federal exchange, then the dispute between the statutes would use the case you cited as precedent to allow them. However, this case does not have a secondary statute to act as the means via which the IRS is authorizing these subsidiaries. IRS interpretation of the law as written does not overrule the text of the law. I am sure that this will not be settled until it reaches the Supreme Court, as it is too important to the program to allow it to be stripped without going as far as possible on appeal.
Gee I wonder if Jack will take back his "nonsensical conjecture" insult thrown my way as I have proved that the haste at which this bill was written is 100% of the reason a part of it is in court now. Such errors might not have happened if the ACA had been written and followed the path of most other bills voted upon by Congress.
Not nonsensical conjecture Jack ... just the facts.
I don't know about that. There are other provisions within the bill where the State is taken to include both the federal government as well as the respective states. I think you'd have to grant an extremely narrow interpretation here (one that flies in the face of common sense if you consider the bill in its entirety) to get the (desired) result.
Are you having trouble reading today, Icy? Your nonsensical conjecture was this:
I will freely admit the rest of what you wrote is simply conjecture.
Separate names with a comma.