• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Well, yes it's technically a tax (because the SC says so), but it's essentially forcing Americans to buy a private product by virtue of their simply being alive.

But the point I was making is: the SC has ways of using logic to get wherever they'd like to go, in order to suit the times & politics.

This is seen at best when we examine cases where they logic their way through cases years apart to get opposing rulings, seemingly to suit the times & mood of the country - the school segregation cases of the '50's/'60's are a great example of this.

The SC doesnt write the law, they only decide cases. Thus they cant define what is or isnt a tax, other than for the purpose of deciding a case.
 
that isn't a logical argument at all. more so when the administration had been calling it a penalty for years prior even to the point of denouncing it was a tax.
Fair enough perhaps in this instance - but if you look at their history, they've pulled-off some pretty amazing stuff.

Just take a look at some of the legal acrobatics involving the Commerce Clause through the years!
 
Then you concede that the Supreme Court can craft legislation, that is what happened today. ACA language does not support this decision, political intention trumps what words mean.

There have been lots of conversations about this case elsewhere, but the bottom line is the SC really had one question - did Congress intend for this result, and if they did, then they eliminate the subsidies for the states who didn't set up their own exchanges. If the SC determines that in context etc. that Congress clearly did NOT intend this result, i.e. it was a drafting or could have been an error, then the law says the SC should read the law in its entirety and defer to the interpretation of the law by the relevant regulatory bodies, which determined that all states qualified for subsidies.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so the terms may be off, but that is the simple concept.

And yes, Congressional (aka political) intent does matter - a string of court cases confirm it. And this is just a MAJOR part of the law. I didn't read all of Scalia's dissent - skimmed it - but I'm almost certain he can't point to a single minute of testimony by anyone in Congress in support of or in opposition to denying credits to states who don't establish exchanges. The reason is EVERYONE, including the states themselves, assumed that credits would be available on the Federal exhanges. Everyone. Until some eagle eye read the law and found this drafting.... oddity. It's just inconceivable that such a major provision was the subject of no debate and was intentionally written so vaguely that no one knew about it until many months after the bill was passed and signed.
 
This is really disappointing.. I mean, I can read, and at worst I was suspecting that the SC would send it back to congress to fix, NOT interpret intent.. To me, that is not the role of the SCOTUS, and never has been. Sending it back for revision was the right call, unfortunately the robes got this one very wrong.

Tim-
 
The irony here is striking. The majority is accused of legislating from the bench because they did not strike down a key provision of the ACA on a legal technicality due to an ambiguously worded phrase in a 900 page bill. To any reasonable individual, not blinded by partisanship, the three dissenters were the obvious judicial activists in this one.

100% wrong. the intent of the bill was to force states to setup exchanges. those that didn't and relied on the federal government were not going to get subsidies.
when they realized this the IRS re-wrote the bill (unconstitutional IRS doesn't have power) and began issuing tax subsidies to everyone.

the majority got it wrong and Roberts is a hack that should be removed a this point. He was supposed to uphold the constitution and he has failed to do so 2 times in the name of politics.

him and the rest of them should be arrested and removed from the bench for failure to do their job and uphold the constitution.

no the 3 dissenters got it right.

from Scalia who got it right.

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges…Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case.

that is 100% correct. words mean nothing anymore.

The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: “Exchange established by the State” means what it looks like it means.

Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges…The Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.

correct the majority in his court rewrote the law unconstitutional in and of itself.
 
100% wrong. the intent of the bill was to force states to setup exchanges. those that didn't and relied on the federal government were not going to get subsidies.

A solid majority on the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Their opinion counts. Yours doesn't. If they claimed the ACA meant that a guy named Ludin has to wipe the ass of every American Citizen at least once in his life, then guess what, that's the law.
 
Maybe they want to make their own mess. Why should such a divisive thing as the Democrats Obamacare become the responsibility of Republicans? Again, let them fix it themselves.

It seems to me, if Republicans try to turn a sows ear into a silk purse, they will be blamed for the pig. So what's to gain?

Healthcare is 17% of the economy, so surely part of their job is to "fix" that. Their campaign pledge was repeal and replace. If they don't want to fix the ACA, then propose their own plan. Or just repeal it and let millions with insurance today go back to being uninsured, etc.
 
ludin said:
it only dropped because you get a subsidy. if you have a good job and have a family and aren't single then well you get screwed.
we taxpayers are paying for you to get your drop in premium.

I have had nothing but major premium increases as my company has to comply with obamacare and they shove more of the cost onto me.

I work and pay taxes--last year I paid ~$28k between income and payroll tax.
 
The SC doesnt write the law, they only decide cases. Thus they cant define what is or isnt a tax, other than for the purpose of deciding a case.
True.

But they have the power of interpretation, thereby deciding the cases in question - and those cases have HUGE ramifications.

And let's not forget the very basics: they solely get to chose (or not) the cases they pick-up! They have a lot of discretion in what they do, and once they rule, where do you appeal?

These guys are powerful!
 
Then you concede that the Supreme Court can craft legislation, that is what happened today. ACA language does not support this decision, political intention trumps what words mean.


That is exactly Right OS :2wave: And Scalia called it out for what it is. He was Correct about the Acts reform and the States involvement.





Scalia wrote. "Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved." Scalia went on to describe the Court's ruling as the "defense of the indefensible," "somersaults of statutory interpretations," and said, "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

"Worst of all for the repute of today’s decision, the Court’s reasoning is largely self-defeating. The Court predicts that making tax credits unavailable in States that do not set up their own Exchanges would cause disastrous economic consequences there. If that is so, however, wouldn’t one expect States to react by setting up their own Exchanges? And wouldn’t that outcome satisfy two of the Act’s goals rather than just one: enabling the Act’s reforms to work and promoting state involvement in the Act’s implementation? The Court protests that the very existence of a federal fallback shows that Congress expected that some States might fail to set up their own Exchanges."

"The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites. I dissent." .....snip~
 
Since it was voted into law the American people have been against the law. While I disagree with the SOCTUS ruling, I guess the upside is that Democrats can't run from this legislation anymore.

Awful, they have to own this?

lzi_gpd6puu6buc0blijhq.png
 
Good news indeed!

Congratulations, Liberals, you got your wish, you get your personal healthcare paid for by the producers in this country. The least you can do is say thank you. Love seeing my tax dollars going to people who are overweight, drinkers, druggies, and in general never take care of themselves. What a great country!!
 
him and the rest of them should be arrested and removed from the bench for failure to do their job and uphold the constitution.
And of course, that will never come to pass. ('fortunately' or 'unfortunately', depending upon one's P.O.V.)

I had a very savvy Grammar School teacher, a Polish nun that lived through the Third Reich and later immigrated to America - and at a very young age, in our U.S. history class, she beat into our heads that the most important legacy of a U.S. President is his Supreme Court nominations.

It took me until adulthood to realize just how right she was.
 
Last edited:
Healthcare is 17% of the economy, so surely part of their job is to "fix" that. Their campaign pledge was repeal and replace. If they don't want to fix the ACA, then propose their own plan. Or just repeal it and let millions with insurance today go back to being uninsured, etc.

I'd rather they focus on 83% of the economy, as opposed to those who ignored it to make a mess of 17% of it.
 
There have been lots of conversations about this case elsewhere, but the bottom line is the SC really had one question - did Congress intend for this result, and if they did, then they eliminate the subsidies for the states who didn't set up their own exchanges. If the SC determines that in context etc. that Congress clearly did NOT intend this result, i.e. it was a drafting or could have been an error, then the law says the SC should read the law in its entirety and defer to the interpretation of the law by the relevant regulatory bodies, which determined that all states qualified for subsidies.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so the terms may be off, but that is the simple concept.

And yes, Congressional (aka political) intent does matter - a string of court cases confirm it. And this is just a MAJOR part of the law. I didn't read all of Scalia's dissent - skimmed it - but I'm almost certain he can't point to a single minute of testimony by anyone in Congress in support of or in opposition to denying credits to states who don't establish exchanges. The reason is EVERYONE, including the states themselves, assumed that credits would be available on the Federal exhanges. Everyone. Until some eagle eye read the law and found this drafting.... oddity. It's just inconceivable that such a major provision was the subject of no debate and was intentionally written so vaguely that no one knew about it until many months after the bill was passed and signed.

The point that everyone is missing here is process. We have one, there is remedy, and that is repair the legislation which should be a Congressional matter. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to rectify by replacement failed legislative crafting, but that is what happened here today. The dissent is right, the meaning of words and the purpose of the courts has been removed for politics. Intention does matter, but the argument for the intention directly conflicts with the ACA wording. In multiple places, you cannot discount that.

And I did read all of the decision, and all of the dissent.
 
The irony here is striking. The majority is accused of legislating from the bench because they did not strike down a key provision of the ACA on a legal technicality due to an ambiguously worded phrase in a 900 page bill. To any reasonable individual, not blinded by partisanship, the three dissenters were the obvious judicial activists in this one.

Logic fail.
 
then please tell me what they can pass to fix this mess (there is no fixing this the way the bill is by the way) that Obama won't veto or democrats won't filibuster?
enlighten us.
as you earlier indicated, they can scrap ACA/Obamacare
and replace it with medicare for all
 
agreed

but i also realize that you could not help yourself




I realized I would end up paying for some lazy ass lib's ****, especially around Chicago.....basically comes down to the Repubs having no leadership and the balls to do what needed to be done.

Now the Demos should expect the same thing going forward.....be the minority party and have **** rammed down their throats. No matter the consequences.
 
There's been stories all over the net for months and months about high premiums and deductibles. Just Google 'Obamacare high deductibles high premiums' .

Thanks for the laugh. "I'm right. Just Google it and you'll find out." Pfft.
 
The point that everyone is missing here is process. We have one, there is remedy, and that is repair the legislation which should be a Congressional matter. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to rectify by replacement failed legislative crafting, but that is what happened here today. The dissent is right, the meaning of words and the purpose of the courts has been removed for politics. Intention does matter, but the argument for the intention directly conflicts with the ACA wording. In multiple places, you cannot discount that.

And I did read all of the decision, and all of the dissent.
I think yours is a very even-handed fairly worded opinion.

Without going into the politics of the ruling, you are absolutely right in that Congress can act as they see fit in regards to the ACA. One Congress enacted it - another can Amend or even repeal it.

But I personally think it's starting to get so far-along-the-way, that it's likely here to stay (due to political & legislative reality).
 
I'd rather they focus on 83% of the economy, as opposed to those who ignored it to make a mess of 17% of it.

That's fine. But the 17% is integrally related to the 83%. For every business in that 83%, access to and affordability of healthcare is a major, major operational issue. Small startups especially.
 
Back
Top Bottom