Page 52 of 154 FirstFirst ... 242505152535462102152 ... LastLast
Results 511 to 520 of 1534

Thread: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

  1. #511
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    12-02-16 @ 10:40 AM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    8,339

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    One might think there is a bit of conflict taking place in the back rooms of the SCOTUS

    Chief Justice Roberts quietly burns Scalia in the Obamacare decision

    The Supreme Court ruling Thursday is the second time Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia have squared off on President Obama's health-care reform law. The chief justice wrote the decision upholding the law the first time it came before the court in 2012, and Scalia dissented.

    Roberts used the dissent's own words against Scalia in the case decided this week
    , which focused on what Congress was trying to do when it passed the Affordable Care Act, generally known as Obamacare. <snip> Scalia disagreed. But, back in 2012, he had written that without subsidies, "the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended."
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  2. #512
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    18,272

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Quit your bellyaching, you sound old.

    First of all, 18 more months and Marco Rubio will be president of the United States. And he'll be the greatest president since Ronald Reagan.

    I believe that the hand of divine providence has always guided America. When we were a colony in the woods, we had perhaps the greatest group of political minds in the history of the world to that point and since.... all miraculously gathered up in one spot.... our founding fathers. Right when we needed them.

    When we needed a Lincoln, we had a Lincoln.

    When we needed an FDR to get us through World War 2, we had an FDR.

    When we needed a Ronald Reagan to get us out of the doldrums of the 70's, we had a Ronald Reagan.

    America will be fine. In fact, it's never been better. We smashed and owned the Soviets in the Cold War, leaving us the only superpower in the world. We dominate the world's high tech industry, the banking and finance industry, the media, etc. We are utterly and completely dominant on the world stage in a way that no nation has ever been in the history of the world. In fact, you're living in the golden age of the American Era. Pax Americana, I believe they call it.

    The debt is high, so what? Name one country that doesn't have a high national debt. Look at what's going on in the EU right now with Greece. The whole thing looks ready to implode. China? Would you trade places with China? I sure as hell wouldn't. China has a whole host of problems we can't even begin to discuss or it would take up an entire page.

    And in 18 months, the Obama experiment will end, and the country will vote in a CONSERVATIVE who will be our next Reagan.
    LOL Rubio.....you are quite the optimist,. He doesn't have a chance in hell of even getting VP with Jeb taking all the wind out of his sails. The election will be a competition between the economies of Clinton and Obama against the Bush economy. We will see who wins.....

  3. #513
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:00 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,529

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Any evidence to back that up? Has the rate of increase slowed over the past few years?

    I gotta laugh at the response from reactionaries in this thread. They're all over the lot. "It's great news! Now the Democrats will be forced to continue defending the Act." "What a disaster for the country!" Just what I'd expect from people who can't think things through clearly.

    The legislation will continue to gain in popularity, and for good reason. A win for Democrats and democracy.
    Two things..

    1. US is not a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. Yes, HUGE difference if you paid attention in Government class in school.

    2. ACA rate hikes in 2016.
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken

  4. #514
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:00 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,529

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by roughdraft274 View Post
    They didn't craft the law. They ruled that the law, though not clear in this instance, should be enforced in the way that it was clearly intended to be enforced by the people that passed it.

    The courts rule on the intent of the law all the time.
    No, they ruled on their own view of intent as they needed to justify approving it. If they didn't change the intent, it would have 100% failed as under Equal Protection Clause of the 15th Amendment.. You can't provide a subsidy to one and not the other. So to get around it Supreme Court has redefined the words and it's intention by redefining the word State = Federal Government. So by this virtue, and most Democrats will be happy, there is no such thing as State's rights anymore which again, the Supreme Court failed to uphold Constitutional law (10th Amendment).

    Now State = Federal when it doesn't. This is a uber Big Government ruling. Enjoy the ride folks.. this ruling has sealed the deal for me. I am getting the hell out of dodge.
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken

  5. #515
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:00 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,529

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    The language that you are referencing is four words out of a 900 page bill. Such minor mistakes in the language are extremely common and, in any other ordinary political climate, such a mistake would have been fixed as a rather routine practice. But given the Republican's antithesis to any remote resemblance of an attempt to work with the President on this issue (or nearly any other issue before the Trade Agreement), such a fix had to wait until it got all the way to the Supreme Court.
    Minor mistakes? Seriously.. do you still think is has another definition?
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken

  6. #516
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,183

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    You bring up interesting points, though I'm not sure I (always) see the same results you envision.

    Why is it you believe Mrs. Clinton would let the ACA collapse upon itself?

    (she was a strong healthcare proponent during her husband's presidency, but got beaten back by the insurance industry then, from my best recollection)

    I do find it interesting you feel a Republican could save it, but with someone like Mr. Bush you might be right, seeing that he seems extremely moderate to me. But I'm still not sure I see the GOP as a whole getting behind the ACA or universal healthcare at this time.

    And you are right in that there is the possibility of MedicAid expansion (though I originally felt there could be a MediCare expansion, possibly starting with a buy-in, whether subsidized or not). But yes, the MedicAid threshold was increased 125% under the ACA, and it could be progressively bumped-up over time.

    I wouldn't doubt that under the umbrella-guise of the ACA, several of these tacts merge and morph over the years into something approaching universal coverage.

    But I'm dead against a means-tested 'government picks winners & losers system', like the current ACA and MedicAid. If there's a benefit to be provided, it should be provided for all, equally.

    [BTW CanadaJohn, my grandfather migrated from Poland to Canada firstly, living there for quite a few years while bringing in tons of family members, before eventually ending-up in the States. Consequently, I've got relatives from Quebec to Vancouver and we visit each-other occasionally, so I've had some very basic familiarity with the Canuck health system since the early '70's - that's why, in part, I want us to enjoy universal healthcare here.]
    My comments were looking mainly at the politics of the issue. From what I can see, there isn't a hope in hell that the Democrats will win back the House in 2016 and chances are very good that the Senate will remain, marginally, in Republican hands. As such, Republicans will run the agenda in Congress for the foreseeable future. Hillary Clinton is pretty much despised in most Republican circles and also remembered for her disaster of healthcare reform in the early 90s that first brought her arrogance to light. There are few Republicans who will work to fix the ACA with Clinton as President. With a Republican President, and one like Jeb Bush, the Republicans will then own the ACA and it will be in their best interests to fix it, politically. Someone like Bush, a policy wonk and an even tempered person, can bring compromise to the table and bring a majority of both parties to reform.

    The reason I suggested an expansion of Medicaid is because the original rationale for the ACA was that too many poor people lacked any insurance - it's a legitimate concern in a first world nation - the way to solve it is for the federal government to self-insure them. Why subsidize payments to an insurance company to pad their profit margins when you can simply on a cost basis provide the care needed? If that had been done originally, the majority of people, most of whom liked their insurance, wouldn't have been nearly as opposed. And that truly would have been the first step towards a universal healthcare program in your system. When it was shown that the services could be provided at a lesser cost per patient than under the previous system, more Americans would have been interested in buying in.

    As for having ancestors in and from Canada, they can probably tell you that our healthcare system has problems and isn't universally equal across the Provinces. As an example, pharmacare, or what is basically prescription medicine coverage, isn't part of our healthcare package. But in Quebec, the Provincial government subsidizes that far more than other provinces. Our system provides for basic coverages universally but much of today's healthcare services and needs are not covered. But the benefit we do have and the comfort we generally feel, is that if we ever get really, deadly, sick our care for the most part is covered and we don't have financial concerns related to health.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  7. #517
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,183

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Compared to America you're second rate. America says jump, Canada asks how high.

    If the American people don't want Obamacare, and we don't, then it won't outlast Obama. Your defeatism might be true if we were talking about Canadians, but we're talking about Americans here. We're doers.
    Perhaps in Texas, reality is an alien concept. Like it or not, after 2016, if the Republicans hold the Senate it will be by one or two seats, not the 60 needed to rule the roost. Even if you have a Republican President, which I hope you do, you'll lack complete control of the agenda and a vote to repeal the ACA without something to replace it is dead in the water in the Senate.

    One could argue, after the past 6 plus years, your "doer" cred is a little tarnished.
    A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.

  8. #518
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-16 @ 12:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,243

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    One might think there is a bit of conflict taking place in the back rooms of the SCOTUS
    It's true that it would not work as intended without the exchanges. But the law clearly states that subsidies would only be provided thru state exchanges. The intent was to strongarm the states into shouldering the full expense d o wn the road, another unfunded mandate. The federal government offered to cover the majority of the costs in the beginning (you states would be fools to not do this! It's free!), but then the money fades away in subsequent years. The feds could handle it because the taxes started years before benefits, so essentially we were taxed to collect bribe money and expected to be short sighted enough to ignore the eventual costs. And those who could see past tomorrow were labelled obstructionists.

    But there were enough state leaders who COULD see down the road, and much to the dismay of their liberal constituents who tend to beselfish assholes who don't care about broader consequences as long as they get their cookie today, said no. So the tactic didn't work. So now the SC has rigged the game and just given the victory to the current administration anyway. We have officially crossed the line as a n ation. The people are no longer represented in government. The last time that happened.....

  9. #519
    Guru
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,892

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    So the intent of what the law is instead of what it actually says is more relevant.

    Good thing Secretary Sebelius spent all that time lobbying the states to create their own exchanges since she was going by what the law said, now those same states will be dropping their exchanges after all the mess that was created.

    Interesting that President Obama and Chief Justice Roberts conducted the Presidential Oath of Office again when they mixed up the words a little. What could these two Constitutional Scholars have known then that they didn't know now?

  10. #520
    Guru
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,156

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    The reason I suggested an expansion of Medicaid is because the original rationale for the ACA was that too many poor people lacked any insurance - it's a legitimate concern in a first world nation - the way to solve it is for the federal government to self-insure them. Why subsidize payments to an insurance company to pad their profit margins when you can simply on a cost basis provide the care needed?
    That's not how Medicaid works anymore. Medicaid--which was expanded by the ACA--is largely in the hands of risk-bearing private insurance companies. Bush and Rubio both played a role in privatizing Florida's Medicaid program, for instance.

Posting Permissions

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