• 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]

Heya Nimby. :2wave: What do you mean questioning, he dissented. Plus told it.....how it is. ;)

I've seen all the twitter comments from GOPs.
It's still the same song-and-dance routine with repeal and no specifics with which to replace it .
 
Private Insurance market gains: 2.4 million

Medicaid Insurance gains: 6.0 million

71% of all newly insured through 2014 were from Medicaid Expansion. (source)

But....but....but just like with all those part time jobs being created showing impressive Obama job growth facts like these don't matter to big govt. liberals who promote the nanny state. You see, as long as the taxpayers are penalized and forced to pay for someone else's personal responsibility issue that is a good thing to liberals and keeps them needed.
 
"Health insurance should be affordable & available to all."
Harruummphh! I don't see ObamaCare doing either. What I do see it doing is increasing the costs to the middle class, shrinking that very middle class they claim to be so worried about.

Next it'll end up being 'I don't dare go to the doctor even if I am sick, because I can't afford the deductibles and copays. Needed surgeries? Out of the question'.

The death of the middle class, quite literally.


Seems some other areas will be having trouble with BO's special package. At the same time as people will.




Meanwhile, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems (NAPH) President and CEO Bruce Siegel expressed concern over the ruling's "potential to limit Medicaid expansion, which could strand millions of our most disadvantaged people without access to basic health care coverage." According to Siegel, the ruling, "at first read," appears to "give the states the ability not to do the expansion."

Similarly, many hospital executives said they still are analyzing the court's ruling on the expansion, the Journal reports. News outlets on Thursday reported a surge in hospital stock prices following the Supreme Court's announcement. By closing bell, HCA stocks were up by 10.8%, Tenet Healthcare stocks were up by 5.5%, and Community Health Systems stocks were up by 8% (Weaver, Journal, 6/28; AHA release, 6/28; NAPH release, 6/28; Kamp, "Marketbeat," Journal, 6/28; Mathews, Journal, 6/29; Kutscher, Modern Healthcare, 6/28 [subscription required]; Barr, Modern Healthcare, 6/28 [subscription required]).

Drugmakers: According to the Wall Street Journal, the decision to uphold ACA means drugmakers—which generally supported ACA's passage—will face tens of billions of dollars in fees and prices when the insurance expansion takes effect in 2014. Scott M. Melville—president and CEO Consumer Healthcare Products Association (CHPA), which represents over-the-counter drug manufacturers and distributors—in a statement following the ruling reiterated his organization's opposition to an ACA provision removing over-the-counter medicines from the flexible spending arrangements" (Rockoff, Journal, 6/28; CHPA release, 6/28). •Medical devicemakers: Mark Leahey—president and CEO of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA)—in a statement said the decision “adds new urgency to repealing" a controversial 2.3% excise tax on devicemakers. Although he noted that MDMA members had not experienced any “windfall” from the reform law, he said, "this misguided policy has already led to job losses and cuts to research and development" (MDMA release, 6/28).....snip~

https://www.advisory.com/Daily-Brie...ealth-industries-are-reacting-to-ACA-decision
 
Then you don't need Obamacare but if you really want me to take care of you send me your SS number so I can deduct you as an exemption?

Hear that...?...that's the sound of your tax money paying for my healthcare. Thanks, see you next month.
 
...in the rear view mirror!

Yep, Texas isn't for everyone.

If you don't have a good work ethic, or have no idea what a work ethic is then your'e probably better off in California or Colorado or Illinois.

If being dependant on someone other than yourself is something you aspire to, then you'll probably hate it here.
 
Yep, Texas isn't for everyone.

If you don't have a good work ethic, or have no idea what a work ethic is then your'e probably better off in California or Colorado or Illinois.

If being dependant on someone other than yourself is something you aspire to, then you'll probably hate it here.

Born here over 60 years ago. I don't like what the right-wing conserva-nuts have turned it into. Bye-bye!
 
That is issue avoidance. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to change legislation based on their own political view of the Act in question, nor are they to poll the public, nor are they to ask me or you or anyone else. They are to interpret in concert with the Constitution, not change up the wording of the legislation at their discretion.

It is the same basic problem, the courts today agreed with an argument made by the government that is not supported by the language of the actual ACA text. That is clear cut judicial activism.

OK, if six SC Justices, experts in Constitutional law, disagree with your interpretation, then it's possible they understand the "interpret in concert with the Constitution" better than you do. Not sure what else to say.

We are talking about a 800+ page legislative effort here and it is bold of you to suggest tax credits and subsidies was the biggest provision of the bill.

I said "one of the biggest" and no one would argue that the credit/subsidy mechanism that makes insurance affordable to the poor and is costing $trillions over time is a minor provision. You're splitting hairs for some reason.

Moreover, the real impact here is passing a legislative effort so large in scope that it has inherent mistakes. That is on Congress to repair, not the Supreme Court to change up to satisfy a government request to ignore the original text.

If it was a drafting error, it's clear the majority made the correct decision.

That is the merit of Scalia's argument. "The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government. That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so." ACA had language in it to deal with States that did not set up an exchange, so you would think it would have been natural for ACA to account for that in dealing with Tax Credits and Subsidies. But some 7 times in the document it explicitly says "Exchange established by the State."

It's not the "merit of Scalia's argument." The idea that the provision was intended to be written in such a way that NO ONE understood the practical impact of not setting up an exchange is laughable, absurd, ridiculous.

No matter if it was legislative mistake or an afterthought argument to account for something not going to plan, the remedy is the same. On the merit of the case the government should have lost, forcing Congress to handle the mistake. But, the courts decided to go along with an argument that specifically goes against the wording of ACA. You cannot avoid that.

Again, unless you want to cite some law here, mistake ==> majority made the correct decision.

You would have a point (perhaps) if we were talking about once sentence in the document, some false explanation for ACA, exchanges and the States. But ACA clearly did account for States that could not or would not establish an exchange, and then they failed to account for that in the 7 places in the document that says nothing about tax credits and subsidies set up by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

No matter what was said on the floor of Congress, no matter what Obama said at the mic ACA legislation had a mistake. It is on Congress to remedy, not the courts to do so in their place.

We aren't making progress. 6 justices disagree with you, and the law stands. That decision was sound. The dissent's interpretation was arguably also legally sound. The SC job is making a decision when the law isn't clear and there are competing interpretations, and they made it - that's how the system works. Bottom line is simple decisions with a clear right/wrong answer don't get to the SC.
 
Hear that...?...that's the sound of your tax money paying for my healthcare. Thanks, see you next month.

Yes, it is that entitlement that you and other liberals are proud of. Doesn't matter to you as long as someone else pays for it. Congratulations on being so successful. You surely made your parents proud.
 
Well, your motivations for moving are completely different than motivations of the Millions of economic refugees that have come to Texas looking for jobs.

Fenton loves to lie about this. He ignores out-migration and never offers any numbers. Texass reactionary bullcrap.

>>People that are moving here are looking for something far more substantial than just another way to cook their brains.

A lot of them are looking for cheap housing, part of a weak, retrograde state economy.

>>Thank God there's Texas.

You could say the same thing about yer septic tank.

There is an almost superstitious understanding of math with the left.

May seem superstitious to you. We prefer facts to bull****.

>>Its only used as a means to further the agenda.

We could lie and offer vague, unsubstantiated, ideological rhetoric like reactionaries do, but that's not our style.

Millions of people that have been introduced to chronic unemployment and dependance.

12.6 million private-sector jobs created since 2010 with the public sector shrinking by two million.

>>the Democrats who were up for election in the 2014 elections avoided ObamaCare like it was the plague. And they still got their clocks cleaned.

They likely would have done better if they had argued in support of the ACA.

>>They'll have no one to blame in 2016

We'll be too busy celebrating.

Missouri and Illinois

????

Is there any point to that?

>>Did you want to try a chart for those not looking for a job too?

Do you mean so-called "discouraged workers"? Here they are in thousands.

View attachment 67186222
 
Of course by then I will be on Medicare.

The third wing of the SCOTUS continues to emerge with this 6-3 decision.

On Housing, Roberts is now fully into legacy mode by crossing over.
I would expect future decisions on voting rights and citizens divided to eventually be revisited.

I agree with the argument that Florida GOPs were saved by the SCOTUS care decision.
I expect the same on the legalizing of gay marriages---it's as if Roberts is saving the GOP from itself .
 
Born here over 60 years ago. I don't like what the right-wing conserva-nuts have turned it into. Bye-bye!

I know a lot of people with no self esteem, no initiative, no drive, and that entitlement mentality like you who feel the same way, Bye!!
 
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!

Only so far as we obey them. They dont have any actual enforcement power. So since they are willing to ignore the law, I guess we all should.
 
Fenton loves to lie about this. He ignores out-migration and never offers any numbers. Texass reactionary bullcrap.

>>People that are moving here are looking for something far more substantial than just another way to cook their brains.

A lot of them are looking for cheap housing, part of a weak, retrograde state economy.

>>Thank God there's Texas.

You could say the same thing about yer septic tank.



May seem superstitious to you. We prefer facts to bull****.

>>Its only used as a means to further the agenda.

We could lie and offer vague, unsubstantiated, ideological rhetoric like reactionaries do, but that's not our style.



12.6 million private-sector jobs created since 2010 with the public sector shrinking by two million.

>>the Democrats who were up for election in the 2014 elections avoided ObamaCare like it was the plague. And they still got their clocks cleaned.

They likely would have done better if they had argued in support of the ACA.

>>They'll have no one to blame in 2016

We'll be too busy celebrating.



????

Is there any point to that?

>>Did you want to try a chart for those not looking for a job too?

Do you mean so-called "discouraged workers"? Here they are in thousands.

View attachment 67186222


Yeah, it put your chart in its proper perspective. Even Chicago's Black Unemployment was up in 2014.
 
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!

How they interpreted the commerce clause was wrong as well. you really have to jump through burning hoops of fire
to get to where they got to. which means if you have to do that much acrobatics to justify your position then your position is probably wrong.
 
Look on the bright side, ER visits are UP after Obamacare too! Glad we straightened all that out and gave people who couldn't afford insurance, a premium they still cannot afford or if they could afford the premium, gave them a deductible they cannot pay. PROBLEM SOLVED!!

Spring 2014 - ER visits skyrocket under ObamaCare | New York Post
Spring 2015 - Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare

It's funny - you post an article then make claims that are nowhere mentioned in what you cited. What the experts say is the ER increases are because there is a shortage of doctors, poor don't have doctor relationships, doctors offices are only open during working hours which is hard for the poor to make, etc. These are structural problems unrelated to the cost of premiums or out of pocket, and the ACA caps the combined amount to a percentage of income. If that percentage is lowered, we either pay more in taxes or reduce covered expenses.

BTW, we rent a little strip mall and we've seen several inquiries by people wanting to set up urgent care clinics to handle the newly insured under ACA what is now going to ER. It's anecdotal, but I talked to one guy yesterday and he thinks these things will become more common. Ours is cheap rental, small amount of space, basically one doctor, one nurse, little overhead and the owner does the billing for a number of clinics. Same idea as the Minute Clinics in CVS etc.

If the ACA hangs around the system will adapt and bring the ER numbers down. Tennessee has been trying like heck to get their Medicaid population out of ERs and into clinics and it's working. It's a matter of effort, as opposed to sitting around whining about a problem but unwilling to do a damn thing to address it.
 
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.

I could careless what they say that was the intent of the bill the FACT they got it WRONG is of no consequence but your appeal to authority is amusing.
the only way you are right is if you believe the SCOTUS is infallible please prove this.
 
I work and pay taxes--last year I paid ~$28k between income and payroll tax.

congrats you get subsidy. that is why it was lower. mine went up and has gone up drastically due to obamacare.
I don't get subsidies to pay for my healthcare. yet i get to pay for all those subsidies that you enjoy.
 
They got close to the public-option though - 59 votes in the Senate, and then as the last senator to commit, Senator Lieberman cast the deciding vote to kill-it.

Seeing as he resides in Hartford (representing CT), I was not greatly surprised (but really teed-off - the ACA badly needed the public-option in lieu of single-payer).

This is water under the bridge, but one person who was right all along in the ACA negotiations said the 59 was never really solid. Don't know if he was right, but what he understood was as long as there were only 59, Democrats wanted to sign on to the public option for political reasons, but that one or more would have been stripped off if it actually meant that part would pass. As I recall, Bayh was an especially weak vote, and his wife, surprise, made mid 6 figures serving on the BOD of a couple of insurers.... Coincidence I'm sure!
 
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.

that is the one flaw in the constitution. there is no check and balance against the SCOTUS. the only thing we can hope now is that in 2016 we get a republican president
and be able to repeal this law through the same method that it was put in. that way we can avoid the stoppage in the senate.
 
Yeah, it put your chart in its proper perspective. Even Chicago's Black Unemployment was up in 2014.

mimi loves posting opinions and passing them off as fact. Not sure he/she knows the difference because being a liberal does that to you, distorts reality and leads people into thinking only with their heart. Interesting how I don't see Obama creating 12 million jobs because he inherited 142 million that is 148 million today at a cost of 7.6 trillion dollars added to the debt. That is liberalism, the end result is whatever you want it to be and the costs don't matter. I fully expect mimi and Obama supporters to go back to 1980 when there were 99 million working Americans and claim Obama created almost 50 million jobs. The end that these people will go to prop up the incompetent in the WH has no bounds.
 
poor Scalia. he is 100% correct yet the other judges choose to simply ignore the constitution and vote against him. one day the shoe will be on the other foot, and when the liberals begin whining I will remind them of this moment.
 
In the handful of states where data is available (Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Virginia, Vermont, Washington state and Washington, D.C.), Pearson says the majority of people buying health coverage on exchanges won't face serious sticker shock.

"We have seen that about 6 percent average rate increases are expected for 2016," Pearson says.

As Avalere looks at the less expensive plans, she says, "We're seeing anywhere from a 5 percent increase for the lowest-cost plan available, to a 1 percent increase for the second-lowest-cost plan available. So we're really looking at very modest increases — very consistent with what we saw from 2014 to 2015." — "Health Insurance Premiums Will Go Up In 2016, But By How Much?" NPR, June 12, 2015​



I'll defer to yer judgement on that. I don't have any personal experience as a liar.

>>Choose the highest period of increase under another president's time and then you're able to state, see, I'm not half as bad as him!

What happened? Did you suffer a serious concussion?

interesting that the articles say different than your post. your dishonesty is noted.

10-30% for next year is the standard. others are wanting up to 60-70%.

in 2014 premiums surged 40% nationwide.
in 215 they surged about the same.

no one is saving anything and insurance costs. i have proven my point. your post is irrelevant compared to the articles.
 
Only so far as we obey them. They dont have any actual enforcement power. So since they are willing to ignore the law, I guess we all should.
Please tell me your kidding me?

If we are not a country of law, we are nothing!
 
Back
Top Bottom