Page 93 of 154 FirstFirst ... 43839192939495103143 ... LastLast
Results 921 to 930 of 1534

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

  1. #921
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    The GOP remains hellbent on electoral suicide, and the Democrat voter base is "stupid"? (why the " " ?)
    Be careful. We don't want to talk the GOP off the ledge; we want them to jump!

  2. #922
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamacareFail View Post
    No...only in your understanding. It is a myth that the hard core non-insured avoid going to the emergency room or a clinic until they are in an emergency situation or nearly at deaths door. They go as much or more then those who are insured, knowing that they will be billed based on ability to pay. Have you never heard of free clinics? And there were many uninsured who could afford insurance who simply opted to pay at the point of service.
    I don't know what to tell you man. The studies all found otherwise, we implemented the policy and it has in fact turned out as the studies predicted. Which is no surprise, since it had already played out that way in the states that did similar things earlier. Instead of trying to argue with me as if we were still back in 2009 trying to predict what would happen, you should be focusing on trying to figure out how you went wrong. Here is a suggestion for where you might start- you're just making random guesses rather than looking things up or reading studies and whatnot.

  3. #923
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    09-27-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,189

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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
    In spite of all this bitching and moaning, I bet you ended up following the law. Same thing now, the repubs had their hearts set on this being overturned. Now that is hasn't been, you will again bitch and moan and still I bet you end up following the law.

  4. #924
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,425

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
    LOL.

    I present facts. You rail on about something else when you can't dispute them.
    you present your opinion which is well not facts.

    It's only 'arrogant' when I'm exaggerating what I know. I've already shown you I'm not. You had a lifetime cap on your insurance before, now you don't. (This is where you say 'Thanks, Obama!).
    this is incorrect. while there were some people that might have had lifetime caps on their insurance they were a minority.

    in 2012 only 725,710 policies out of 16m individual plans were considered limited benefit.
    about 1m more of those were student insurance policies that campuses offered to students that didn't have insurance.

    so only about 11% of individual plans were limited benefit.
    more of those types of plans were offered to low income workers to give them some kind of healthcare plan that they could afford.

    Then you pretend to know what my health insurance situation is. I'm pleased to let you know I'm quite secure in a strong plan provided by my employer, with a healthcare savings account that is growing daily. But I'm not pretending it's not an 'ACA' plan.
    good for you. you have a plan you like. millions of other people had plans they liked and not only had it yanked out from under them but then had to pay the huge premium increases that followed it.

    they were stuck with health services that they are never going to use but have to pay for them anyway which adds to the cost of their insurance.

  5. #925
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11,893

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    please tell me when the HHS became a state. you are avoiding the question and bringing up irrelevant information.
    In this case I do know the law better than the SCOTUS. the HHS is not a state nor does it have any federal power to represent a state.

    Respect is earned not given.
    when the decision is in contradiction to the law and the constitution you bet I don't respect it nor should you as a matter of principle.


    irrelevant to the discussion.




    your avoidance of the argument is very telling.
    Alright 'ludin',

    I see you want to concentrate on the details (a specific word, 'state', in the singular) rather than the totality of the law (What is the logical intention? Is the detail in question cohesive with other details in the body of the law? Is there consistency?). This is what the Justices ruled on, not the specific detail you keep pounding on.

    I saw these legal arguments made in the case docs when the case was submitted, and apparently these arguments prevailed, or the decision would not have been for the ACA.

    I haven't reviewed the decision or opinion yet, but you have spurred me on to do this (I've been meaning to). If you haven't already, maybe you might look at the decision & the opinions to find out why your argument was ruled against.

    6 judges ruled against you - I believe they all committed opinions.
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

  6. #926
    Quantum sufficit


    Threegoofs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The birthplace of Italian Beef
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,826

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    you present your opinion which is well not facts.



    this is incorrect. while there were some people that might have had lifetime caps on their insurance they were a minority.

    .
    Nope. Most states had lifetime caps, including CA and TX. I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure it was a majority of plans with lifetime caps. This reference cites a number of 102 million.
    http://ccf.georgetown.edu/all/afford...verage-circus/

    I saw quite a few cases like this, where a family had lost everything to fight an illness, often one that ended in a death.

    That's called a fact, not an opinion.

    And you did not give us a fact, you just pulled a guess out of your nether regions.
    Last edited by Threegoofs; 06-28-15 at 08:19 PM.
    Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.

  7. #927
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,425

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    Alright 'ludin',

    I see you want to concentrate on the details (a specific word, 'state', in the singular) rather than the totality of the law (What is the logical intention? Is the detail in question cohesive with other details in the body of the law? Is there consistency?). This is what the Justices ruled on, not the specific detail you keep pounding on.
    you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.
    the part that references the subsidies does not mention anything about federal based exchanges. it is plain and clear. it is not ambiguous or anything else.

    when this was realized because no one read the bloody bill the IRS took it on themselves to change the bill (unconstitutional) the IRS does not have the power to change law.

    the next issue is that HHS is not a state nor does it have the authority to act as a state or represent a state. the SCOTUS GOT IT WRONG.
    they ignored past precedent and ignored the law and the constitution. the HHS and the federal government now has the ability to be a state something that
    would have the founding fathers rolling in their grave. just like when this SCOTUS upheld that the government can now force you to buy a product as long as they tax you.

    don't want to buy a chevy? to bad you get to otherwise the federal government can issue a tax against you if you don't and it is legal.

    this is the problem that these guys get themselves into when they rule based on their political ideology instead of the constitution like they are supposed to.

    there is no consistency. the federal government and the HHS is not a state nor do they have the constitutional authority to represent the state but now they do.
    thanks to this unconstitutional decision by the SCOTUS.

    I saw these legal arguments made in the case docs when the case was submitted, and apparently these arguments prevailed, or the decision would not have been for the ACA.
    it had nothing to do with the law or the constitution it was 100% political which is why this SCOTUS should be removed from the bench.

    I haven't reviewed the decision or opinion yet, but you have spurred me on to do this (I've been meaning to). If you haven't already, maybe you might look at the decision & the opinions to find out why your argument was ruled against.

    6 judges ruled against you - I believe they all committed opinions.
    I could careless what they ruled what part about that don't you get? THEY WERE WRONG in their ruling.
    you seem to not care and just want to pander.

    they passed it based on politics not the rule of law or the constitution.

  8. #928
    Guru
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,163

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.
    And the law makes it clear that when we're talking about state-based exchanges we're also talking about the federal exchange. Because a federal exchange established in lieu of a state exchange is "such exchange" (i.e., is the state-based exchange) for all intents and purposes of the law.

    Per SCOTUS:
    Although phrased as a requirement, the Act gives the States “flexibility” by allowing them to “elect” whether they want to establish an Exchange. §18041(b). If the State chooses not to do so, Section 18041 provides that the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1) (emphasis added).

    By using the phrase “such Exchange,” Section 18041 instructs the Secretary to establish and operate the same Exchange that the State was directed to establish under Section 18031. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1661 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “such” as “That or those; having just been mentioned”). In other words, State Exchanges and Federal Exchanges are equivalent—they must meet the same requirements, perform the same functions, and serve the same purposes. Although State and Federal Exchanges are established by different sovereigns, Sections 18031 and 18041 do not suggest that they differ in any meaningful way. A Federal Exchange therefore counts as “an Exchange” under Section 36B.

  9. #929
    Sage
    Chomsky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Third Coast
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11,893

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.
    the part that references the subsidies does not mention anything about federal based exchanges. it is plain and clear. it is not ambiguous or anything else.

    when this was realized because no one read the bloody bill the IRS took it on themselves to change the bill (unconstitutional) the IRS does not have the power to change law.

    the next issue is that HHS is not a state nor does it have the authority to act as a state or represent a state. the SCOTUS GOT IT WRONG.
    they ignored past precedent and ignored the law and the constitution. the HHS and the federal government now has the ability to be a state something that
    would have the founding fathers rolling in their grave. just like when this SCOTUS upheld that the government can now force you to buy a product as long as they tax you.

    don't want to buy a chevy? to bad you get to otherwise the federal government can issue a tax against you if you don't and it is legal.

    this is the problem that these guys get themselves into when they rule based on their political ideology instead of the constitution like they are supposed to.

    there is no consistency. the federal government and the HHS is not a state nor do they have the constitutional authority to represent the state but now they do.
    thanks to this unconstitutional decision by the SCOTUS.



    it had nothing to do with the law or the constitution it was 100% political which is why this SCOTUS should be removed from the bench.



    I could careless what they ruled what part about that don't you get? THEY WERE WRONG in their ruling.
    you seem to not care and just want to pander.

    they passed it based on politics not the rule of law or the constitution.
    Not pandering here at all.

    I've seen your argument - let me take a look at theirs, and I'll see better where these arguments stand & get back to you in a bit with a more detailed opinion.

    (I've been needing to read it)

    Fair enough?
    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

    The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)

  10. #930
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,425

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chomsky View Post
    Not pandering here at all.

    I've seen your argument - let me take a look at theirs, and I'll see better where these arguments stand & get back to you in a bit with a more detailed opinion.

    (I've been needing to read it)

    Fair enough?
    You need to read the dissent as well. Roberts is just protecting his screw up from the 1st ruling on the individual mandate.

Posting Permissions

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