• 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]

People like you.

People that are honest ?

People that are hard working ?

People that are intelligent ?

People that are self reliant ?

People that are proud of their State and Country ?

So you prefer people that are under the perpetual influence of IQ lowering psychoactive chemical compounds to real Texans ?
 
no one for this has shown me where the SCOTUS has the authority or the IRS for that matter to re-write the law.
which is what they did. that is unconstitutional. they do not have the ability to re-write a law or change the wording of a law yet they did it anyway.

there is a political will we are just going to have to wait till 2016 when Obama is gone in order to do it.

 
I did and you lost.

No, you say I lost. You offer no evidence to back up yer claim. A truly miserable loss for you.

Mean Old Republicans Hate Poor People?

Not entirely. The reactionary wing just figures it's their own fault that they're poor and the hell with 'em.

no you quoted what you wanted from the articles and ignore the rest of it that says different.

Such as?

>>again your dishonesty is noted.

Again, yer saying something doesn't make it true.

>>all those articles back what I said.

Where?

>>you are proven wrong I am proven right.

You've offered no proof. Yer claims are truly pathetic.

still won't matter they don't have the 3/4's in the senate to override a veto.

Two-thirds, and in both chambers. Another constitutional scholar.

Grow its economy? Balanced its budget? Created a Surplus?

All thanks to Obamanomics. Steady improvement nationwide, and at a higher rate where policies like raising the minimum wage have been enacted.

You are the first American in 20 years who has shown a true understanding of what it is.

Many Americans support universal healthcare, if that's what yer referring to. I'm one of them.

>>What I have never understood is that the US more or less invented the public school system, community owned schools on a universal not for profit footing. But, you refuse to see the same benefits for something as important as health care.

As you know, the problem is that powerful, vested interests have a stranglehold on the political system. It's bought and paid for.

>>As strange as this may sound, I believe Canada's "nice" reputation is in part due to our health care, our lower crime rate, indeed our community oriented culture our growing unity as a nation, all have been bolstered by health care.

Doesn't sound strange to me. I might well be better off living in the Great White North. But I'm an American and I'll stay here and fight for I think is right.

The roads in my State are paid by my state, county roads like the one I live on are paid for by taxes taken at the county level.

And the interstate highway is paid for and owned by Uncle Sam.

>>Unless you live in my county or my state, what and how much exactly do you pay that I would "enjoy" exactly? Quantify it for me.

$17,362.54

>>do you pay my Netflix bill? I enjoy my internet service

The Internet grew out of federal spending — "a prime example of the importance of government spending to scientific advances and innovation." ("What We Don't Know About Innovation," Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond)

>>did you subsidize my car and how much did you subsidize so that I can thank you properly?

Auto bailout saved that industry. Federal money has done a lot for driving safety, fuel mileage, and lower levels of pollution.

>>The justice system was here before you or I paid taxes to support it and it will be here long after

But it wouldn't be operating without current revenues, some of which are federal.

It should be noted that you pay federal taxes as well. As Colonel Cathcart would say, "It's all part of the contract."

>>you want me to THANK you for paying your LAWFUL taxes because I benefit by you doing what you have no choice but to do

You said yerself that he could go to prison for not paying. That would be a choice.

As for Obamacare, if the Repubs take the White House in 2016 its days will be numbered.

That's one reason the GOP will not capture the WH.
 
Yep, they've gone from re-interpreting the Constitution and what words mean to re-interpreting what legislation means. Why have a congress, just pass a few blanket bills and allow the SCOTUS to re-interpret their meaning as the demand requires.

Reinterpreting? (There's no hyphen.) Who does the plain old "interpreting"? I'll tell ya. It's the Court.
 
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.

I have to admit, you are pretty good at trying to turn this around. It is not about me knowing more than a supreme court judge, it is about 3 of them having a take on this decision today that I agree with.

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.

Because you made it up.

The largest block of text behind ACA is Title 2: The Role of Public Programs, at almost 100 sections covering everything from every part of Medicaid, CHIP, various government Prescription Drug Plans, MACPAC assessment policies, and other Child Health Services. The second largest block is Title 3: Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Healthcare, also at almost 100 sections covering everything from Medicare, to Healthcare and Hospital evaluations, to Fee Schedule and Coding changes, to Payment Accuracy, to Charge Master regulations, to Medicare Part D plan changes.

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

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.

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

Again, since you do not or will not understand, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to correct wording of legislation. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make legislation at all, it is there job to evaluate the challenge made against the law as passed. In this case, they politically made a decision and made a conclusion that the document itself does not stipulate.

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.

I am not suggesting the law does not stand, I am suggesting they made an error. 3 justices pointed out the error in dissent. And you are wrong on the powers of the Supreme Court. Their clear job is to interpret the law vs. challenge, not edit and repair what Congress did not handle well. The law as written was clear, today 6 justices expanded the definition of "State" to include the Federal Government.
 
So tell us mmi, where is the better off? Are there less or more people uninsured now than before Obamcare? Are rates the same or more now under Obamacare? Are medical costs less or more now than under Obamacare?
 
The article states that "71 percent of the combined increase in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014 was attributable to 25 states and the District of Columbia adopting the Obamacare Medicaid expansion."

Ocare open enrollment ends at the first half of the year each year. Those are the latest numbers for open enrollment until the final numbers for 2015 come in.
 
And gratefully, these changes aren't going anywhere either. They will be here for decades, thankfully. I say it's long overdue.

:raises eyebrow: I'm not sure what ACA you're talking about, but the one I'm aware of doubles down on employer provided health insurance by mandating it for companies with over 50 employees, and punishing them if they don't.
 


There is a bright side.

The Supreme court's ruling put ObamaCare back into the laps of the Democrat party and it let the GOP Congress off the hook.

This is a law thats so bad, so unpopular, that Democrats did everything they could to NOT mention its existence in the run up to the 2014 elections, and still lost.

Its not going to improve either, its going to get worse. And in 2016, the Democrat party will have no one to blame while they're trying again to avoid talking about Obama's signature legislation.
 
Canada is just one of the nations in the world different from the US in this regard. Notwithstanding, Canada, nor Germany, nor Britain, nor Japan, nor ............. are "second rate countries". Protection of one's citizenry, all of one's citizenry, is a barometer of first world status. That can come in many forms and is one of the primary functions of government.

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.
 
mmi said:
Not entirely. The reactionary wing just figures it's their own fault that they're poor and the hell with 'em.

:shrug: generally, people who stay poor do so largely because of decisions that they make, such as quitting school, having children out of wedlock, etc. Agreeably, we make it more difficult for them to raise themselves up by imposing price floors on things like labor, and punishing businesses for hiring them v hiring (for example) illegals.
 
What is never happening is the repeal of the ACA and can only I hope the GOP candidate will be in favor of repeal. That will guarantee a Democratic win across the board. The idea that you believe voters will elect another Bush is quite laughable too.
uninsured-rate-gallup-april-2015.png

People hate obamacare, hence why the dems lost control of congress....but keep lying to yourself I find it funny
 
you have no idea what you've posted do you?

just follow the conversations of others and then you can get an idea as to what two people are talking about.

You are the one that has no idea what I was talking about.
 
It only took about an hour or two to read because it's double spaced and I can speed read. If you don't read it then how do you know you don't like what's in it, right?

Holy crap!!!!

Is this Nancy Pelosi??

She never read the freaking thing.
 
Holy crap!!!!

Is this Nancy Pelosi??

She never read the freaking thing.
Jiminy Cricket!!!

As Majority Leader of the House, Pelosi wasn't privy to the Senate bill until after it passed. Once the Senate passed their bill then it goes to the house so they can read and vote on it. That's just how congress works.


"...Her contention was that the Senate “didn’t have a bill.” And until the Senate produced an actual piece of legislation that could be matched up and debated against what was passed by the House, no one truly knew what would be voted on.

“It’s because we didn’t have a Senate bill,” Pelosi said forcefully before Eleanor Clift of Newsweek even finished asking her a question about the statement’s context. “We were urging the Senate to pass a bill.” ...."​

Pelosi defends her infamous health care remark - The Washington Post
 
The largest block of text

Is that the relevant measure?

>>it is not the job of the Supreme Court to correct wording of legislation.

If a law clearly intends an outcome that is inconsistent with a minor textual error, it is the Court's job to discern the legislative intent.

>>I am suggesting they made an error.

The Congress included a minor textual error.

>>the Supreme Court. Their clear job is to interpret the law vs. challenge, not edit and repair what Congress did not handle well.

No, you are wrong. Wrong in the sense that the Court did interpret the law. It's not "editing."

where is the better off?

I don't know what you mean.

>>Are there less or more people uninsured now than before Obamcare?

More. Many more.

>>Are rates the same or more now under Obamacare?

Rates go up because of the increasing cost of healthcare. The issue is how much. The rate of increase has slowed significantly.

>>Are medical costs less or more now than under Obamacare?

Higher. Again, the rate of increase has slowed significantly.

Ocare open enrollment ends at the first half of the year each year. Those are the latest numbers for open enrollment until the final numbers for 2015 come in.

You gave numbers that you said were "through 2014," implying the period from the program's inception through the end of 2014. If you meant otherwise, you should have said so.

Perhaps you're just not old enough to understand what has happened to language.

I'm fifty-eight and I'm a professional copyeditor.

reinterpret

re-interpret

You will indeed find re-interpret in published works. The non-hyphenated version is about twelve times more prevalent. The spread was a bit narrower in the late eighteenth century. I'm not saying yer preference is "wrong," and if I implied that I should not have.

>>And no, interpretation is not necessary

Nevertheless, the Court interprets. It does not reinterpret, or even re-interpret.

>>the same critters who wrote the turd that is Obamacare are still alive to tell you what they meant when they enacted it.

Perhaps their statements in the time leading up to this decision played a role.
 
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.

Evidently you missed out on civics class. The Federal Court System is the ultimate arbiters of federal law. They are the only authority in regards to federal law that counts. You may not like that, but that is how it works in the USA. Its pointless to debate a SCOTUS decision, because our opinions are all irrelevant. If you don't like the ACA, then you simply have to support candidates and convince your peers to support candidates that will repeal the law and of course vote in a president that will not veto their repeal. Good luck with that. I think you have about a zero percent chance on that.
 
Its pointless to debate a SCOTUS decision, because our opinions are all irrelevant.

I wouldn't go that far. Yer right that electoral politics is the solution, but public opinion plays a role in that. And debate can foster understanding and consensus.
 
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.

I said this earlier: Americans don't want Obamacare. They just want what's in it.
 
Is that the relevant measure?

I did not make the original comment bringing that up, read the history again or admit you should not have jumped in.

>>it is not the job of the Supreme Court to correct wording of legislation.

If a law clearly intends an outcome that is inconsistent with a minor textual error, it is the Court's job to discern the legislative intent.

Minor, LOL. This is what happens when Congress passes such a huge law there ends up a problem it expects the Supreme Court to edit for them.

>>I am suggesting they made an error.

The Congress included a minor textual error.

Again, not minor. A real change on what is a State and why it now means much more.

>>the Supreme Court. Their clear job is to interpret the law vs. challenge, not edit and repair what Congress did not handle well.

No, you are wrong. Wrong in the sense that the Court did interpret the law. It's not "editing."

Yes it is, and for the reasons mentioned. Now the term "State" has an expanded definition. Interpret does not mean edit the meaning of words to make the government happy.
 
Maybe the Cons will finally stop trying to rely on legislation from the bench. Perhaps they will get smart and actually work WITH the PPACA (fix the legislation, where appropriate and expand state exchanges), because they are out of options in working against it.

It is the left that is working to salvage unpopular and unconstitutional legislation through activist justices on the US Supreme Court. Justice Roberts went through mental gymanastics in an attempt to justify both of his decisions in both lawsuits in regards to Obamacare. And the only way to fix PPACA (so called) is to repeal it and replace it with something that is constitutional and works.
 
They had time to support BHO on free trade when his own party did not. As for Obamacare, if the Repubs take the White House in 2016 its days will be numbered.

And you give us yet another reason not to give a Bush a 4th term. Like we needed it.:lol:
 
This is really good stuff. Glad that we don't have to re-legislate the entire healthcare law and now we can focus on using the tools it provides to supply better healthcare for cheaper.

It is accomplishing neither. It certainly is not improving healthcare and it is certainly not cheaper.
 
I wouldn't go that far. Yer right that electoral politics is the solution, but public opinion plays a role in that. And debate can foster understanding and consensus.

Sure and we have been debating the ACA for years now. The vast, vast majority of federal courts have ruled in favor it when it came before them, and with millions getting coverage through the exchanges now, people might as well get used to it and focus on reforming it where necessary rather than this pipe dream of repeal.
 
Back
Top Bottom