Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 66

Thread: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

  1. #21
    The Dude
    Kobie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Western NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    42,895

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by TeleKat View Post
    If the ACA had that effect, I'd be in agreement with you 100%. I've expressed my support for universal healthcare in some form but the ACA is really just corporate welfare shrouded in leftist language. Bear in mind that Mitt Romney laid out the original blueprint for this healthcare system. I think you know where I'm going with this...

    The problem with the ACA is that it is just a clever attempt to put more money in the pockets of big insurance companies. Force people to buy healthcare from them and push people to get plans they don't need nor want. We should just go single-payer if we want results IMO.
    But we can't do that, because soshulizm.

  2. #22
    Educator Meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    02-22-15 @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    677

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    But we can't do that, because soshulizm.
    At least the people in Ma. were able to vote on the issue directly, not like the
    strong arming and bribing being done to the politicians to pass it.

  3. #23
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    This is not an over-sight in writing the legislation. When the law was written the states were to set up their exchanges. We all know why the states did not. The federal government step in an set up the exchanges in the states that refused.

    The Fed offered subsidies to those in the states that did not set up their exchanges. Now opponents are saying that the law does not allow the fed to offer the subsidies.

    There is no constitutional question. The Court will simply send the law back to Congress with the order to fix the law. If Congress does not fix the law... that is on Congress.

    How many times has Social Security Act be modified since its implementation? All major legislation requires fixes.



    Either Congress fixes the law or it stands as implemented.
    Perhaps you could tell us what your view was in a similar matter where one level of government wasn't carrying out their constitutional responsibilities and another level of government tried to fill the void. That would be with border security/immigration. If you'll recall, Arizona under Governor Brewer tried to establish laws that allowed the State of Arizona to fill the void left by the Obama administration's inaction. The Obama administration took them to court, convincing the court that the States couldn't encroach on Federal jurisdiction. Seems to me, the States are simply enforcing their constitutional prerogative related to the ACA, yet you want them to simply accede to the Federal law and not exercise/enforce their rights.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  4. #24
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Perhaps you could tell us what your view was in a similar matter where one level of government wasn't carrying out their constitutional responsibilities and another level of government tried to fill the void. That would be with border security/immigration. If you'll recall, Arizona under Governor Brewer tried to establish laws that allowed the State of Arizona to fill the void left by the Obama administration's inaction. The Obama administration took them to court, convincing the court that the States couldn't encroach on Federal jurisdiction. Seems to me, the States are simply enforcing their constitutional prerogative related to the ACA, yet you want them to simply accede to the Federal law and not exercise/enforce their rights.
    There was no need to "convince a court"... It has been a long standing principle that immigration is under the exclusive purview of the federal government.

    This suit is not being brought by any state claiming that ACA violated their constitutional rights. The suit is being brought by Virginia residents [David King et.al.]. In short, King is claiming that HHS over-steped its authority in granting subsidies to low and middle income purchasers of insurance through the federal exchanges.

    KING v BURWELL
    David KING; Douglas Hurst; Brenda Levy; Rose Luck, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Sylvia Matthews BURWELL, in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Health & Human Services; Jacob Lew, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury; United States Department of the Treasury; Internal Revenue Service; John Koskinen, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Defendants–Appellees. - See more at: KING v. BURWELL - FindLaw
    There is no state's rights issue.


    If you would like me to still explain Separation of powers, the federal government, Congress, the Executive branch, delegation of powers, Administrative law, Executive branch rules making, and Congressional oversight... I would be happy to do so.


  5. #25
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,190

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    There was no need to "convince a court"... It has been a long standing principle that immigration is under the exclusive purview of the federal government.

    This suit is not being brought by any state claiming that ACA violated their constitutional rights. The suit is being brought by Virginia residents [David King et.al.]. In short, King is claiming that HHS over-steped its authority in granting subsidies to low and middle income purchasers of insurance through the federal exchanges.



    There is no state's rights issue.


    If you would like me to still explain Separation of powers, the federal government, Congress, the Executive branch, delegation of powers, Administrative law, Executive branch rules making, and Congressional oversight... I would be happy to do so.
    No need - no need for the snotty attitude either. I was simply referring to the principle of letting each level of government deal with their own jurisdictional issues. Clearly, you had no problem with the federal level putting the states in their place but you oppose the states level from doing the same.

    To be clear, the states oppose the exchanges because the subsidies would be paid for by state taxpayers who are responsible for topping up medicare funds and the imposition of a federal mandate they had no voice in nor agree with.

    It's also clear that the states would have no court jurisdiction in bringing a case related to the feds paying the subsidy where the state has no exchange simply because the state has no direct loss - the feds foot the bill. But a resident of a state, who pays federal taxes, could very well have standing because his/her taxes are being used contrary to the expressed law passed by Congress.

    It wouldn't surprise me, however, if the matter gets to the Supreme Court, that States affected may submit amicus briefs in support of the court challenge.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  6. #26
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,880

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    If the Supreme court rules against the government on this one, I see no other way to remedy the problem than to have waivers issued to those states who did not set up state-run markets to no longer be under federal guidelines of Obamacare. That works for me. Because then the state could set up it's own guidelines which would in turn allow affordable insurance without having to follow all the rules and regulations in Obamacare that has made insurance so expensive and higher deductibles for most. Look there are only 14 states that did set up state-run markets. The overwhelming majority did not. Out of the 14 states they are overwhelmingly blue states. Also if such a waiver were passed, you would hear a stampede of businesses relocating to states who are no longer under federal rules because coverage for their employees would be less expensive than what they are having to pay under Obamacare rules.

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,285

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Meister View Post
    Let's see, before people couldn't afford healthcare premiums.
    Now with Obamacare people can afford healthcare premiums,
    but can't afford the deductibles....right?
    What's to fix?

    Not true ... (1) both premiums and deductibles increased for some, (2) deductibles for others, while (3) for others, neither because 1 & 2 are paying for it through subsidies.
    Which brings us back to the point of the thread.
    Does the Law refer to the "State" meaning "a State" or does "State" mean GOVERNMENT.
    The context is everything.

  8. #28
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Kobie View Post
    But we can't do that, because soshulizm.
    We couldn't do that because there weren't votes in the Democrat party to pass it.

  9. #29
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    No need - no need for the snotty attitude either. I was simply referring to the principle of letting each level of government deal with their own jurisdictional issues. Clearly, you had no problem with the federal level putting the states in their place but you oppose the states level from doing the same.

    To be clear, the states oppose the exchanges because the subsidies would be paid for by state taxpayers who are responsible for topping up medicare funds and the imposition of a federal mandate they had no voice in nor agree with.

    It's also clear that the states would have no court jurisdiction in bringing a case related to the feds paying the subsidy where the state has no exchange simply because the state has no direct loss - the feds foot the bill. But a resident of a state, who pays federal taxes, could very well have standing because his/her taxes are being used contrary to the expressed law passed by Congress.

    It wouldn't surprise me, however, if the matter gets to the Supreme Court, that States affected may submit amicus briefs in support of the court challenge.
    OK. But there is still no constitutional issue.

    King is in essence is asking the court for redress...but in fact should be asking the court to force congress to fix that provision of the law. Instead he is asking for the court to invalidate the entire act because exact wording that the federal government could fund direct subsidies if the states failed to is not in that one section 1321.

    States did offer AB's on the point that the ambiguity of the subsidies did not allow the states to make"reasonable policy choices".
    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...ief-States.pdf

    BRIEF OF THE STATES OF OKLAHOMA,
    ALABAMA, GEORGIA, INDIANA,
    NEBRASKA, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND
    WEST VIRGINIA AND CONSUMERS’ RESEARCH
    AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS


  10. #30
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Challenge To Obamacare

    Wow, great if the challengers win they potentially throw the whole and the American economy into a massive spiral. They create the very economic disaster they claim they are trying to avoid

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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