• 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]

Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies

Story just now breaking. More info to come soon. Millions of Americans get to keep their healthcare. A huge win for the Obama admin.
I believe there was no real choice - in practical terms it was too much of a mess (for everyone involved) if the subsidies were lost.

And these guys are pros at using logical argument to get wherever they'd like to go; reference Justice Roberts declaring ObamaCare a tax to keep it alive!
 
The lesson here is lying and deception to gain support for a law once passed is A-OK. All the politicians have to do is say, "Well, we did it for your own good" and all is forgiven. :mrgreen:

How many did they say would still never be covered once BO's specially package was finally approved? Guess they know their future now, huh?
 
democrats had a chance to clean up their mess and they failed. they had a chance to stop it before the mess began to begin with.
they can't change the law Obama refuses and veto's any change made to it.

we will have to wait till 2016 when he is voted out to get this destructive law out of the way.

Yeah, good luck with GOPers getting off their rear ends and actually coming up with a plan they can get through their own caucus, much less the Congress.
 
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.

That is their job to figure out. It's what they were elected to do. Ask them.

Problem is they're good at saying, "Hell no we can't!!" but a little short on actually coming up with alternatives.
 
Any evidence to back that up? Has the rate of increase slowed over the past few years?

I gotta laugh at the response from reactionaries in this thread. They're all over the lot. "It's great news! Now the Democrats will be forced to continue defending the Act." "What a disaster for the country!" Just what I'd expect from people who can't think things through clearly.

The legislation will continue to gain in popularity, and for good reason. A win for Democrats and democracy. :)

Wrong.

There's been stories all over the net for months and months about high premiums and deductibles. Just Google 'Obamacare high deductibles high premiums' .
 
Obviously reasonable minds can come to different conclusions. The point was there was legal precedent on both sides. It's just not a slam dunk case.

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.
 
Yes we know, Democrats caused a mess, and it's the Republicans fault if they don't clean it up.

Lot's of other things to address. Why not let people live with what the Democrats did to them. Seems reasonable to me.

If they don't want to clean up the "mess" caused by Democrats, why did they run for office and why would anyone vote for them? Any moron can take office, collect big donations from billionaires, and sit on their rear pointing fingers at the other guys...
 
I believe there was no real choice - in practical terms it was too much of a mess (for everyone involved) if the subsidies were lost.

And these guys are pros at using logical argument to get wherever they'd like to go; reference Justice Roberts declaring ObamaCare a tax to keep it alive!

The Govt. mandated that a person must pay, is that not a tax?
Estimated at 16 million would lose coverage in those States.
And the Republicans would not /did not have a plan other than repealing Obamacare.
 
Conservatives didn't draft a piss poor bill, so poorly written that it needs to go to SCOTUS to be interpreted.

Yes Conservatives have never written a bill that was challenged in any way in the courts.......:roll:
 
I believe there was no real choice - in practical terms it was too much of a mess (for everyone involved) if the subsidies were lost.

And these guys are pros at using logical argument to get wherever they'd like to go; reference Justice Roberts declaring ObamaCare a tax to keep it alive!

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.
 
Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies

Story just now breaking. More info to come soon. Millions of Americans get to keep their healthcare. A huge win for the Obama admin.

So... I just finished reading the opinion and the dissent. Scallia eviscerates the justification behind the opinion. His last line as follows is masterful "And 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."
 
Thought I heard a car backfire, but it was coming from the west.. must have been all the GOP heads exploding in anger.
 
The Govt. mandated that a person must pay, is that not a tax?
Estimated at 16 million would lose coverage in those States.
And the Republicans would not /did not have a plan other than repealing Obamacare.

not according to the administration. it was a tax penalty they even went as far as standing up and saying that it wasn't a tax.
yep they did and more will lose it as soon as the employor mandate goes into effect.

they don't have to have a plan. things could have continued the way they were.
 
Nothing surprising here. Legislators failed to uphold the constitution when they passed the ACA. The executive violated the law in signing it. The Supreme court failed to protect the law. The voters dont really care to hold govt accountable.

The entire system has failed, and this is just one more example. The only solution is to abolish the federal govt and start over.
 
they are expecting a 20-40% increase again this year on obamacare plans how is that getting cheaper?

I have heard about some insurance companies requesting double digit increases - those are requests, not approvals - and the insurance companies which do increase their prices still have to compete (on a website where it is easy to compare numerous plans against each other) with the rest of the insurance companies that maintain competitive pricing.
 
The Govt. mandated that a person must pay, is that not a tax?
Estimated at 16 million would lose coverage in those States.
And the Republicans would not /did not have a plan other than repealing Obamacare.

By definition, no. A tax is on something that you do. Not something that you DONT do. This is a fine.
 
The Govt. mandated that a person must pay, is that not a tax?
Estimated at 16 million would lose coverage in those States.
And the Republicans would not /did not have a plan other than repealing Obamacare.
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 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.
 
I have heard about some insurance companies requesting double digit increases - those are requests, not approvals - and the insurance companies which do increase their prices still have to compete (on a website where it is easy to compare numerous plans against each other) with the rest of the insurance companies that maintain competitive pricing.

no that was the increase the first year and the 2nd year.
those were approved increases.

for 2016 it is worse while not approved it is ranging from 10-70% with 10-30% being the average.

again please tell me how that is cheaper. you see the word increasing? increasing means going up decreasing means going down.
prices are not decreasing.
 
The Govt. mandated that a person must pay, is that not a tax?
Estimated at 16 million would lose coverage in those States.
And the Republicans would not /did not have a plan other than repealing Obamacare.


Heya JF. :2wave: Yep and one that keeps growing and doubling and growing some more.

Over 31 mil that will never have insurance.....isn't that what they said.

That's not correct several Republicans had plans. But then they couldn't agree on them as a party. It was and is a Leadership problem.
 
If they don't want to clean up the "mess" caused by Democrats, why did they run for office and why would anyone vote for them? Any moron can take office, collect big donations from billionaires, and sit on their rear pointing fingers at the other guys...

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?
 
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.

There was NOTHING ambiguous it.

It was actually very clear. Only States who built their own exchanges would receive subsidies.

Jonathan Gruber even explained WHY the Bill was written that way.
 
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.

That's a good point considering the actual cost of this new bureaucracy hasn't yet been realized and some of the law has yet to be implemented. The poor can't even afford the premiums with the subsidies and are still using the emergency rooms through Medicaid to seek treatment. Medicaid only pays a fraction of the cost due to healthcare providers. So those who can afford the premiums are paying more for medical services to compensate. The rich can afford the premiums and higher healthcare costs. The middle class not so much. Pretty soon they will be joining the rest of the turnips the government can't squeeze any blood out of.
 
Back
Top Bottom