• 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]

you present your opinion which is well not facts.



this is incorrect. while there were some people that might have had lifetime caps on their insurance they were a minority.

.

Nope. Most states had lifetime caps, including CA and TX. I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure it was a majority of plans with lifetime caps. This reference cites a number of 102 million.
http://ccf.georgetown.edu/all/affor...mits-has-ended-martin-addies-coverage-circus/

I saw quite a few cases like this, where a family had lost everything to fight an illness, often one that ended in a death.

That's called a fact, not an opinion.

And you did not give us a fact, you just pulled a guess out of your nether regions.
 
Last edited:
Alright 'ludin',

I see you want to concentrate on the details (a specific word, 'state', in the singular) rather than the totality of the law (What is the logical intention? Is the detail in question cohesive with other details in the body of the law? Is there consistency?). This is what the Justices ruled on, not the specific detail you keep pounding on.

you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.
the part that references the subsidies does not mention anything about federal based exchanges. it is plain and clear. it is not ambiguous or anything else.

when this was realized because no one read the bloody bill the IRS took it on themselves to change the bill (unconstitutional) the IRS does not have the power to change law.

the next issue is that HHS is not a state nor does it have the authority to act as a state or represent a state. the SCOTUS GOT IT WRONG.
they ignored past precedent and ignored the law and the constitution. the HHS and the federal government now has the ability to be a state something that
would have the founding fathers rolling in their grave. just like when this SCOTUS upheld that the government can now force you to buy a product as long as they tax you.

don't want to buy a chevy? to bad you get to otherwise the federal government can issue a tax against you if you don't and it is legal.

this is the problem that these guys get themselves into when they rule based on their political ideology instead of the constitution like they are supposed to.

there is no consistency. the federal government and the HHS is not a state nor do they have the constitutional authority to represent the state but now they do.
thanks to this unconstitutional decision by the SCOTUS.

I saw these legal arguments made in the case docs when the case was submitted, and apparently these arguments prevailed, or the decision would not have been for the ACA.

it had nothing to do with the law or the constitution it was 100% political which is why this SCOTUS should be removed from the bench.

I haven't reviewed the decision or opinion yet, but you have spurred me on to do this (I've been meaning to). If you haven't already, maybe you might look at the decision & the opinions to find out why your argument was ruled against.

6 judges ruled against you - I believe they all committed opinions.

I could careless what they ruled what part about that don't you get? THEY WERE WRONG in their ruling.
you seem to not care and just want to pander.

they passed it based on politics not the rule of law or the constitution.
 
you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.

And the law makes it clear that when we're talking about state-based exchanges we're also talking about the federal exchange. Because a federal exchange established in lieu of a state exchange is "such exchange" (i.e., is the state-based exchange) for all intents and purposes of the law.

Per SCOTUS:
Although phrased as a requirement, the Act gives the States “flexibility” by allowing them to “elect” whether they want to establish an Exchange. §18041(b). If the State chooses not to do so, Section 18041 provides that the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1) (emphasis added).

By using the phrase “such Exchange,” Section 18041 instructs the Secretary to establish and operate the same Exchange that the State was directed to establish under Section 18031. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1661 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “such” as “That or those; having just been mentioned”). In other words, State Exchanges and Federal Exchanges are equivalent—they must meet the same requirements, perform the same functions, and serve the same purposes. Although State and Federal Exchanges are established by different sovereigns, Sections 18031 and 18041 do not suggest that they differ in any meaningful way. A Federal Exchange therefore counts as “an Exchange” under Section 36B.
 
you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.
the part that references the subsidies does not mention anything about federal based exchanges. it is plain and clear. it is not ambiguous or anything else.

when this was realized because no one read the bloody bill the IRS took it on themselves to change the bill (unconstitutional) the IRS does not have the power to change law.

the next issue is that HHS is not a state nor does it have the authority to act as a state or represent a state. the SCOTUS GOT IT WRONG.
they ignored past precedent and ignored the law and the constitution. the HHS and the federal government now has the ability to be a state something that
would have the founding fathers rolling in their grave. just like when this SCOTUS upheld that the government can now force you to buy a product as long as they tax you.

don't want to buy a chevy? to bad you get to otherwise the federal government can issue a tax against you if you don't and it is legal.

this is the problem that these guys get themselves into when they rule based on their political ideology instead of the constitution like they are supposed to.

there is no consistency. the federal government and the HHS is not a state nor do they have the constitutional authority to represent the state but now they do.
thanks to this unconstitutional decision by the SCOTUS.



it had nothing to do with the law or the constitution it was 100% political which is why this SCOTUS should be removed from the bench.



I could careless what they ruled what part about that don't you get? THEY WERE WRONG in their ruling.
you seem to not care and just want to pander.

they passed it based on politics not the rule of law or the constitution.
Not pandering here at all.

I've seen your argument - let me take a look at theirs, and I'll see better where these arguments stand & get back to you in a bit with a more detailed opinion.

(I've been needing to read it)

Fair enough?
 
Not pandering here at all.

I've seen your argument - let me take a look at theirs, and I'll see better where these arguments stand & get back to you in a bit with a more detailed opinion.

(I've been needing to read it)

Fair enough?

You need to read the dissent as well. Roberts is just protecting his screw up from the 1st ruling on the individual mandate.
 
No...only in your understanding. It is a myth that the hard core non-insured avoid going to the emergency room or a clinic until they are in an emergency situation or nearly at deaths door. They go as much or more then those who are insured, knowing that they will be billed based on ability to pay. Have you never heard of free clinics? And there were many uninsured who could afford insurance who simply opted to pay at the point of service.

The little charity I work with has about 70 uninsured men. My brother is an ER doc. So I have a decent understanding on both ends what the poor can and cannot do and how they get healthcare. And what I know without any doubt is the way you describe our system and how the poor access it is completely ignorant.

Yes, lots of uninsured go to the ER for routine care, because that is their only real option. And free clinics do great work and I admire all the medical providers who participate in them. But what you're doing is concluding that because these things exist and some people manage to get care through them that they are even approaching an adequate solution for the vast majority of the uninsured. Those things just are not adequate, and every person who looks at the problem knows this without the slightest doubt. I'd tell you stories about the people I know pretty well and the problems they have accessing long term care for their chronic conditions, but if you don't already know this it's a waste of time because you don't want to really look into it.

The bottom line is the fact that we need Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corp in the U.S. is testimony to your misunderstanding.

Hidden Hurt: Desperate for medical care, the uninsured flock by the hundreds to a remote corner of Virginia for the chance to see a doctor

RAM_02.jpg
 
LOL.

I present facts. You rail on about something else when you can't dispute them.

It's only 'arrogant' when I'm exaggerating what I know. I've already shown you I'm not. You had a lifetime cap on your insurance before, now you don't. (This is where you say 'Thanks, Obama!).

Then you pretend to know what my health insurance situation is. I'm pleased to let you know I'm quite secure in a strong plan provided by my employer, with a healthcare savings account that is growing daily. But I'm not pretending it's not an 'ACA' plan.

So then like most liberals this is about your perception and not about you. I could never ever hit my lifetime cap nor could you. My deductible was lower and thank God I don't have to purchase ACA but then the issue remains, why do you expect someone else to pay for the health insurance premiums of others?
 
So then like most liberals this is about your perception and not about you. I could never ever hit my lifetime cap nor could you. My deductible was lower and thank God I don't have to purchase ACA but then the issue remains, why do you expect someone else to pay for the health insurance premiums of others?

Really? You know you could never hit your lifetime cap?

Are you psychic?

Luckily for us all, we don't have to pretend we are psychic anymore. The ACA covers us all. Thanks, Obama!

And again, you got ACA compliant insurance, and the ACA is involved at a very basic level on the type of care you get, how it will be delivered, and how it will be improved.

And you remain ungrateful, and willfully ignorant.
 
In spite of all this bitching and moaning, I bet you ended up following the law. Same thing now, the repubs had their hearts set on this being overturned. Now that is hasn't been, you will again bitch and moan and still I bet you end up following the law.

And of course that isn't something you do. I am sure that you followed the law in TX about illegality of same sex marriage and abortion. I honestly believe Obamacare is going to further bankrupt this country, was a very poorly crafted law like most liberal laws that affect social issues. You see, you continue to think with your heart instead of your brain as well as judge everyone else by your own standards and beliefs.
 
Really? You know you could never hit your lifetime cap?

Are you psychic?

Luckily for us all, we don't have to pretend we are psychic anymore. The ACA covers us all. Thanks, Obama!

And again, you got ACA compliant insurance, and the ACA is involved at a very basic level on the type of care you get, how it will be delivered, and how it will be improved.

And you remain ungrateful, and willfully ignorant.

Keep dodging the issue, why is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for your personal healthcare issues? Seems that the problem is the way far too many were raised still expecting that entitlement mentality where someone else always pays for what you want. In the liberal world results don't matter because feelings trump them.
 
Keep dodging the issue, why is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for your personal healthcare issues? Seems that the problem is the way far too many were raised still expecting that entitlement mentality where someone else always pays for what you want. In the liberal world results don't matter because feelings trump them.

Well, no. YOU keep dodging issues, like how you mysteriously know what diseases you'll get in the future.

And taxpayers have been paying for our healthcare for our entire lives- employer paid health care has always been tax exempt, and a way to pay employees with less tax outlays. You just pretend it's not a fact.
 
I never heard of any republican politician bragging as to how wonderful that piece of crap is. 0bama said that everybody would be covered by ACA but not everybody wanted it so now it only covers a portion of the U.S. population, isn't that wonderful? Of course it is! Tremendous success! Wait till the premiums eventually sky rocket, they are going up in a few months.

Obama didn't say when everyone would be covered...just that they would. And the premiums were skyrocketing before Obamacare. But now the ACA can put a cap on the insurance rates to slow them down. I think what might be happening now are the insurance companies are raising rates before that portion of the law kicks in. But I'm just guessing.


No self respecting Republican would be caught dead praising Obamacare, but they don't seem to have a problem with the ACA.


Poll: Republicans hate ‘Obamacare,’ but like most of what it does - The Washington Post
 
Well, no. YOU keep dodging issues, like how you mysteriously know what diseases you'll get in the future.

And taxpayers have been paying for our healthcare for our entire lives- employer paid health care has always been tax exempt, and a way to pay employees with less tax outlays. You just pretend it's not a fact.

You keep dodging the more relative question as to why it is my responsibility to pay for your healthcare insurance?? Like far too many you never want to accept personal responsibility but rather have someone else pay for your premiums with their FIT.
 
You keep dodging the more relative question as to why it is my responsibility to pay for your healthcare insurance?? Like far too many you never want to accept personal responsibility but rather have someone else pay for your premiums with their FIT.

You're not paying my healthcare insurance.

Of course, when you get old, I'll be gladly paying yours, because there is no reasonable market based solution to have the elderly cover their own insurance at reasonable rates. You are welcome, BTW.
 
You're not paying my healthcare insurance.

Of course, when you get old, I'll be gladly paying yours, because there is no reasonable market based solution to have the elderly cover their own insurance at reasonable rates. You are welcome, BTW.

That isn't your responsibility it is mine. You don't seem to understand the concept. When I say yours the context is supporters of ACA. Medicare was a self funded program until "your" Party put it on budget and spent that money. There would have been no need for you to pay for my health insurance until your party created a Ponzi scheme.
 
Obama didn't say when everyone would be covered...just that they would. And the premiums were skyrocketing before Obamacare. But now the ACA can put a cap on the insurance rates to slow them down. I think what might be happening now are the insurance companies are raising rates before that portion of the law kicks in. But I'm just guessing.


No self respecting Republican would be caught dead praising Obamacare, but they don't seem to have a problem with the ACA.


Poll: Republicans hate ‘Obamacare,’ but like most of what it does - The Washington Post

The Wash. Post is anti conservative. They love 0bama's policies.
 
The Wash. Post is anti conservative. They love 0bama's policies.

Really, because I thought they were more right leaning after they supported GWBush's policy to invade Iraq.

"...On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, "Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper".[57] It has regularly published an ideological mixture of op-ed columnists, some of them left-leaning (including E.J. Dionne, Greg Sargent, and Eugene Robinson), and many on the right (including George Will, Marc Thiessen, Robert Kagan, Robert Samuelson, Michael Gerson and Charles Krauthammer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#Political_stance

But then, that doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing, does it?
 
Really, because I thought they were more right leaning after they supported GWBush's policy to invade Iraq.

"...On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, "Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper".[57] It has regularly published an ideological mixture of op-ed columnists, some of them left-leaning (including E.J. Dionne, Greg Sargent, and Eugene Robinson), and many on the right (including George Will, Marc Thiessen, Robert Kagan, Robert Samuelson, Michael Gerson and Charles Krauthammer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#Political_stance


Let me see... Obama + Bush = Liberals.



Bush was not a TRUE conservative, he ran as a conservative in name only, just like Bernie Sanders, he is not an Independent he is a Socialists.
 
Last edited:
That isn't your responsibility it is mine. You don't seem to understand the concept. When I say yours the context is supporters of ACA. Medicare was a self funded program until "your" Party put it on budget and spent that money. There would have been no need for you to pay for my health insurance until your party created a Ponzi scheme.

And the GOP has been completely powerless to change that?

Poor guys.
 
Let me see... Obama + Bush = Liberals.



Bush was not a TRUE conservative, he ran as a conservative in name only, just like Bernie Sanders, he is not an Independent he is a Socialists.

Revisonist history or just your opinion?
 
Revisonist history or just your opinion?

Looks like a fact to me regarding Sanders

Bernie Sanders emerges as top Hillary Clinton challenger as liberal agenda resonates - Washington Times

Democratic Party officials and liberal activists credited the rise of Mr. Sanders, a Vermont independent who proudly labels himself a socialist, to his forceful appeal for a grass-roots movement to fight Wall Street, income inequality, college debt and climate change


Also regarding Bush is it fact or fiction that a Democrat Controlled Senate with major control of the Senate Oversight and intelligence Committee authorized the Iraq War based upon the same information that Bush had?
 
And the GOP has been completely powerless to change that?

Poor guys.

With socialists in control of the Democrat Party, highly unlikely. What is sad is how you run from the question posed because you really do know the answer
 
And the peace mind coming from knowing you have access to health care if something really bad happens to you.

Funny. The deductible I got is 1000, and I have a max out of payment for the year to be 6K.

That means, any medical expenses over 6K for the entire year, gets paid for 100%


Friend of mine had a heart attack last year. His hospital bills were way more than that. Because of that, he did not become bankrupt.
 
With socialists in control of the Democrat Party, highly unlikely. What is sad is how you run from the question posed because you really do know the answer

Not really. Remember all those points you got crushed on and promptly ignored earlier?

Healthcare is a common good. I benefit from you having good health, and vice versa. It is common sense that we set up an appropriate mechanism to ensure we have optimal health which leads to optimal productivity.

I'm not in the 1%....but probably in the 5% and possibly in the 2%, and I owe my success to the hundreds of healthy people who are productive and can funnel their money to me eventually, rather than being ill.

The difference between you and me is that I understand that, while you are bound and determined to stay willfully ignorant of that fact.
 
Back
Top Bottom