Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 137

Thread: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

  1. #1
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    17,818

    In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    What will the Republican propose if the Law is overturned. Appears when it comes to Plan B's - plural- Govt shutdowns, they really do not do well.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us...T.nav=top-news

    WASHINGTON —
    It was Thomas M. Christina, an employment benefits lawyer from Greenville, S.C., who found a new vulnerability in the sprawling law. “I noticed something peculiar about the tax credit,” he told a gathering of strategists at the American Enterprise Institute.

    With a rudimentary PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Christina sketched a new line of argument. He pointed to four previously unnoticed words in the health care law, enacted nine months earlier. They seemed to say that its tax-credit subsidies were limited to people living where an insurance marketplace, known as an exchange, had been “established by the state.
    If overturned, 6 million lose coverage. That ain't gonna be pretty now is it.
    Those defending state that it called for subsidies in all States and are critical to the implementation of the Law.
    From what I found 28 States plus DOC are now signed on.
    One older ruling by the SCOTUS, "Pennhurst doctrine", may be what prevent ObamaCare from being overturned.

    Thoughts are?
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Hillary is the only defense I or anyone else needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not once have I showed my dick to a woman and she thought it was creepy. In fact, in 100% of the cases, they were pretty excited about it. I don't know who you're showing your **** too.

  2. #2
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,246

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by JANFU View Post
    What will the Republican propose if the Law is overturned. Appears when it comes to Plan B's - plural- Govt shutdowns, they really do not do well.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us...T.nav=top-news



    If overturned, 6 million lose coverage. That ain't gonna be pretty now is it.
    Those defending state that it called for subsidies in all States and are critical to the implementation of the Law.
    From what I found 28 States plus DOC are now signed on.
    One older ruling by the SCOTUS, "Pennhurst doctrine", may be what prevent ObamaCare from being overturned.

    Thoughts are?
    Who's fault is it if it's overturned ? Not the GOP.

    They didn't purposely write the law to make States that DON'T set up a exchange look bad politically, the Obama administration did. They thought playing Politics with people's Health coverage was a great plan when they wrote the law, and now they should suffer the consequences of their irresponsible and cruel calculations.

    Scuttling every bit of that disastrous legislation is what needs to happen, and the sooner the better. Obama Care hits the working Middle Class families the hardest through higher premiums and higher deductibles for a substandard product, and the tax increases written into it are being passed off onto the American consumer.

    It guarantees higher cost on businesses and consumers when median household incomes haven't even recovered to 2007 levels and it was pushed through on the back of a long list of lies. It's a disaster.
    The New Democratic Party Slogan :

    " Return to Power By Any Means Necessary "

  3. #3
    Living in Gods country


    JANFU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    17,818

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Who's fault is it if it's overturned ? Not the GOP.

    They didn't purposely write the law to make States that DON'T set up a exchange look bad politically, the Obama administration did. They thought playing Politics with people's Health coverage was a great plan when they wrote the law, and now they should suffer the consequences of their irresponsible and cruel calculations.

    Scuttling every bit of that disastrous legislation is what needs to happen, and the sooner the better. Obama Care hits the working Middle Class families the hardest through higher premiums and higher deductibles for a substandard product, and the tax increases written into it are being passed off onto the American consumer.

    It guarantees higher cost on businesses and consumers when median household incomes haven't even recovered to 2007 levels and it was pushed through on the back of a long list of lies. It's a disaster.
    40 House Republicans Back Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Hillary is the only defense I or anyone else needs.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Not once have I showed my dick to a woman and she thought it was creepy. In fact, in 100% of the cases, they were pretty excited about it. I don't know who you're showing your **** too.

  4. #4
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,246

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Good for them. Thats one of the primary reasons they cleaned the Democrats clocks in the Midterms.

    They were sent up there to kill this abortion of a law.

    ObamaCares extra cost are targeted for the Middle class. The Rich can afford it and the poor don't pay Insurance premiums.

    Its a horrible highly destructive law that was pushed through on the back of a long list of lies.

    The Democrats thought they could get a Political victory by stating in the law that States that did NOT create their own exchanges would not have access to subsidies.

    They thought playing with people's lives and healthcare was a good idea. That playing Political gotcha was more important than writing a decent piece of legislation.

    Well it back fired and if the Supreme court decides to uphold the law as its written, its the fault of the Democrats.

  5. #5
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    It wouldn't overturn the entire law, merely the subsidies people were intended to get. The reasonable thing to do would be to amend the law to be more clear. (Some argue that the federal exchange is treated the same due to some other wording in the bill)

    However, we all know that the GOP wouldn't dare do anything to make the ACA better for the citizens.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #6
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    This lawsuit is just one of many examples of the GOP putting much effort into something that has value as propoganda but little practical effect.

    The lawsuit will not be successful. The govt's response to the lawsuits shows that they are without merit

    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...1245-FINAL.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  7. #7
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,599

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    The Democrats thought they could get a Political victory by stating in the law that States that did NOT create their own exchanges would not have access to subsidies.
    Except it doesn't ever state that. Hence the tortured reading of the challengers, not to mention the fact that no such implication was ever conveyed to the states or to the public (so I'm not sure where the "political victory" aspect was supposed to happen if this was kept secret all along).

  8. #8
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,246

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    Except it doesn't ever state that. Hence the tortured reading of the challengers, not to mention the fact that no such implication was ever conveyed to the states or to the public (so I'm not sure where the "political victory" aspect was supposed to happen if this was kept secret all along).

    Yes, we all know by now how Gruber was barely of any influence when it came to how that Law was written.

    Democrats caught acute amnesia all the sudden when Gruber started telling the Truth.

    Who's Gruber anyway ? Just some whako misrepresenting himself publicly as a key architect to " look cool ".

    Does the law state that the Federal Government has the authority to provide subsidies if and when States refuse to construct exchanges of their own ?

    And if it doesn't why not ? Why would such a OBVIOUS provision that could have a disastrous impact on the totality of the legislation be ommitted ?

    Either they didn't think of it.....yea right, or it was written in a attempt to gain Political capital knowing that some States, and probably RED STATES would refuse to play ball.

    Sorry, I don't buy the Democrats forgforgetting to put in a provision that could crater their entire law.

    Not these Democrats, not the new Democrat party who's cruelty and cynicism knows no bounds.

  9. #9
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:34 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,599

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    Does the law state that the Federal Government has the authority to provide subsidies if and when States refuse to construct exchanges of their own ?
    The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges. It says that if a state doesn't elect to establish an exchange "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State." [emphasis mine]

    An exchange established by HHS isn't an alternative to a 1311 exchange, it is such exchange.

    As understood by everyone for the last few years (from state officials making the decision of whether or not to establish an exchange, to the CBO, to the House GOP) until it recently became convenient to forget that in some quarters.

  10. #10
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,246

    Re: In Four-Word Phrase, Challenger Spied Health Care Law’s Vulnerability

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    The law doesn't distinguish between state and federally facilitated exchanges. It says that if a state doesn't elect to establish an exchange "the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State." [emphasis mine]

    An exchange established by HHS isn't an alternative to a 1311 exchange, it is such exchange.

    As understood by everyone for the last few years (from state officials making the decision of whether or not to establish an exchange, to the CBO, to the House GOP) until it recently became convenient to forget that in some quarters.
    Im pretty sure the Federal Government's authority to extend subsidies to people in States that refused to set up an exchange has already been challenged in two courts and has been struck down.

    So there must be some merit to the lawsuit.

    Why would the law need to make the distinction of allowing Federal subsidies to extend out to 1311 exchanges if it intent was to cover everyone regardless of whether or not their State participated ?

    It was written that way for a good reason. So the Obama adminsitration could via mandate override the power of the individual State Governors and in the process demonize the GOP Governors who had the wisdom to tell Obama and the Democrats to go pound sand when it came time to set up their exchanges.

    Just like Gruber said.

    I'm all for this law crashing and burning via a Supreme court ruling. Its a terrible law thats had serious and destructive economic consequences ever since it was pushed through Congress.

    Its a albatross around the neck of the Democrat party ( Obviously ) and BOTH parties should be doing everything in their power to make it go away for good.

    But again, this is the Democrat party, who misrepresents and out right ignores the impact of their policies on the American people.

    Its in the Obama administration's best interest Politically to offer up misinformation and false narratives insteadof acknowledge the plight of Millions of Americans who've been adversely affected by this Law and Obama's response to the continued economic stagnation over the last 6 years.

    Even when they acknowledge them, instead of taking repsonsibility for the impact of their policies, they devolve into divisive narratives that always pit American against American. Like Biden saying we need to do something worthy of emancipation because the " Rich " are hoarding their wealth ( personal property )

    We're in a " recovery " and ObamaCare is a " Success ", case closed and ignore the 92 million Americans who are of working age and who are not being counted and ignore the increase in premiums and deductibles that have nailed the Middle class right at a time when median income is still below 2007 levels.

    Its cruel to say the least.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •