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

Originally Posted by Greenbeard

Kasich has made the moral case for embracing the ACA's Medicaid expansion. That's got to be a tough sell in a GOP primary.

In the primaries four years ago Rick Perry got himself into trouble by supporting compassion for immigrant children and charging that opponents of DREAM-esqe legislation are heartless ("If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart."). That didn't go over well with the base, as I recall.

Kasich has arguably gone further, implying opponents of Obama's Medicaid expansion are going to hell: "Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer." How are the poor-bashing, ACA-despising ogres in the base going to like it when he holds a mirror up to them?

Well Kasich, do you give ten percent of your salary every year to the poor? No Kasich, you can't count money taken from you by force by the government, but only the money that you voluntarily gave to the poor on your own accord. Well Kasich, do you? As for me, well I give eleven percent on average to the poor and since I oppose theft, extortion and involuntary servitude I oppose welfare. If you have a problem with that, well, **** you.

Oh and Kasich, if you want to be judged favorably by St. Peter you better start giving ten percent of your salary to the poor voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Somerville

Yeah, it only cost an extra $24 billion during the shutdown.

What shutdown?

Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth

No, you just expect others to fully fund your medical costs when those costs exceed your premium.

I wasn't forced to buy ACA and chose the insurance company that I pay premiums to. I knew the cost, I knew the deductible and I knew the coverage. Unlike you I take personal responsibility and don't expect your TAX DOLLARS to fund my insurance. You seem to not understand that it is tax dollars funding people like you not personal premium payments

Originally Posted by Threegoofs

You seem to not understand that the ACA is more than just exchanges. You were 'forced to buy 'ACA, and that's why your insurance probably has better benefits than you've ever had in the past, like no lifetime cap, for example.

I find it just amazing that the ACA opponents are consistently the people who understand it least.

When are you going to learn that you do not know every individual's own insurance issues? You have no idea what I had or what my benefits were but I will tell you nothing ACA offers comes even close. You buy the leftwing lies and one of these days you are going to realize it.

What is it about liberals that creates this kind of arrogance in that you know what is best for everyone else? Did you grow up expecting someone else to pay for your personal responsibility issues for that is what you are calling for with taxpayer dollars funding your healthcare insurance. With your attitude no wonder this country is over 18 trillion in debt

Originally Posted by Chomsky

The SC decides final interpretation ludin, and they evaluate legislation in legal terms, not linguistic.

since when is a federal department a State? the HHS is a department of government it is not a state nor does it have the power to act as a state nor the authority
to represent a state. the SCOTUS was wrong which is the whole point.

There's more to law, than specific phrases - there's context.

the context was clear. only state based exchanges were to get subsidies. HHS is not a state.

With all respects, and no specific prejudice to yourself, I'll trust the legal judgement of the Justices of the Court, before that an individual on the internet - though I'm happy for the discussion. But if we don't respect the Court, who do we respect?

as I have recently found out respect is earned not given and when the SCOTUS put politics above their job and above their oath of office then no they don't deserve respect.

I do agree the legislation can be re-written (within constitutional authority) if the political will is there (specifically, a GOP President & 60 count filibuster-proof Senate).

it will be there once Obama is gone and we have a republican presidency.
the budget reconciliation process will be used to remove obamacare from the law.

Originally Posted by Threegoofs

Because I know what the ACA has done for insurance in the U.S. It was a rare plan that offered unlimited caps on healthcare insurance, and, in fact, it was illegal in most states.

From reading your posts, I have a strong feeling you didn't know what your insurance covered before ACA, and don't know now ( in your 'non-ACA plan!).

Your opinion noted as is your arrogance. You have no idea what you are talking about and obviously need another entitlement program to help with the jealousy you have of others who have more than you. I find people like you who are unable to compete demanding more and more taxpayer funded services to provide equal outcome, not just equal opportunity. Who pays for those subsidies you are getting from ACA?

Originally Posted by ludin

the budget reconciliation process will be used to remove obamacare from the law.

Sorry, sparky, reconciliation can't be used to increase the deficit. The CBO just certified last week (under the GOP's hand-picked successor to Elmendorf) that repealing the ACA would increase the deficit.