• 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 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.
 
Meister said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Kobie said:
But we can't do that, because soshulizm.
Click to expand...

We couldn't do that because there weren't votes in the Democrat party to pass it.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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-content/uploads/2014/09/Cert-Amicus-Brief-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
 
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
 
1750Texan said:
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-content/uploads/2014/09/Cert-Amicus-Brief-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
Click to expand...

Perhaps the issue is being clouded here.

As I understand it, and I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong, many States refused to set up exchanges because if they were to do so a large portion of those who would then newly qualify for Medicaid and/or exchange funded subsidies would do so at the direct expense of the taxpayers of that State. In other words, the State's Medicaid bill would balloon without corresponding federal government funding at the exact same level even though the federal government was going to enjoy increased revenue from the tax/penalty applied to those who refused to purchase policies and could afford to do so as well as from raiding Medicare funds.

If that is correct, and I believe it is, the simple solution would be to guarantee that State treasuries remain whole if they set up ACA exchanges. The federal government is capable of doing that although it will affect their budget bottom line.
 
CanadaJohn said:
There's no way of knowing, but I'd say it's far more likely, should the Supreme Court rule against the administration, that the ACA would be amended by Congress to allow for the federal exchange to subsidize. That amendment would also be accompanied by other amendments that would make changes that Republican legislators would like to see and the President will be in the position of having to veto what he needs or accept changes he may not want.
Click to expand...

You are correct...there's no way of knowing.

And I agree that the proper ruling would be against Obamacare. Congress...it doesn't matter which Party was in power at the time...screwed up when they wrote the law. Congress...it doesn't matter which Party is in power now...is responsible for fixing it. If that causes problems for Obama...too bad.

However...I don't hold out much hope that the Supremes will make the proper ruling. I think they'll engage in the same kind of tortured legal logic they used to justify the individual mandate.
 
Dangit. When I saw the title I hoped maybe the Presidents lawsuit against congress demanding that the ACA actually be implemented was going before the SCOTUS. Then I remembered there is no such lawsuit and it is the president and democrats that have been consistently blocking full implementation. Sigh...oh well.

Does it bother supporters of the ACA that States are as opposed to implementation of the ACA as Obama has been?
 
Mycroft said:
You are correct...there's no way of knowing.

And I agree that the proper ruling would be against Obamacare. Congress...it doesn't matter which Party was in power at the time...screwed up when they wrote the law. Congress...it doesn't matter which Party is in power now...is responsible for fixing it. If that causes problems for Obama...too bad.

However...I don't hold out much hope that the Supremes will make the proper ruling. I think they'll engage in the same kind of tortured legal logic they used to justify the individual mandate.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with that, although I do think that Roberts was suitably chastised by the right, even other Justices, for his tortured logic and he may see that his attempts at trying to accommodate all were a big failure and hopefully he'll just rule on the law and not on his political view of the situation.
 
The entire thing is blatantly unconstitutional and outside of Congressional authority. Roberts already failed at his job... he couldn't have done it without the 4 blatantly corrupt lefties. At least one Bush appointee is capable of reading.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I can't argue with that, although I do think that Roberts was suitably chastised by the right, even other Justices, for his tortured logic and he may see that his attempts at trying to accommodate all were a big failure and hopefully he'll just rule on the law and not on his political view of the situation.
Click to expand...

Roberts certainly did legislate from the bench.
 
1750Texan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Article 1 Section 8...

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,"

This is a legislative power.

The president has no authority to do anything other than to follow and faithfully execute the laws.
 
1750Texan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't understand that. It certainly does not stand as implemented if the Supreme Court holds the federal government had no authority to set up these exchanges.
 
1750Texan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Justice Scalia disagrees with you. As he wrote in dissent in Arizona v. U.S.,

Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result . . . . As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty.
 
Mycroft said:
You are correct...there's no way of knowing.

And I agree that the proper ruling would be against Obamacare. Congress...it doesn't matter which Party was in power at the time...screwed up when they wrote the law. Congress...it doesn't matter which Party is in power now...is responsible for fixing it. If that causes problems for Obama...too bad.

However...I don't hold out much hope that the Supremes will make the proper ruling. I think they'll engage in the same kind of tortured legal logic they used to justify the individual mandate.
Click to expand...

I saw a comment by a law professor who has been following this case. He pointed out that at least four Justices had to have voted for the Court to take the case, and that the only possible reason they would want that is that they think it was wrongly decided by the court below. So the big question is whether there are only four who think that, or five.
 
Misterveritis said:
Article 1 Section 8...

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,"

This is a legislative power.

The president has no authority to do anything other than to follow and faithfully execute the laws.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. The President[Executive branch] is delegated the power by congress to administrate rules and regulations to carry out the application of the laws written. Obama is head of HHS, ICE, and The Border Patrol and can direct each as he sees fit. That is Constitutional.

Congress has oversight and can change directives ordered by the President. Congress has not exercised that prerogative. Congress has allowed Obama's EOs to stand.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
We couldn't do that because there weren't votes in the Democrat party to pass it.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as the "Democrat party."

The Democrats are dickless chicken****s. Of course they won't support single payer.
 
matchlight said:
Justice Scalia disagrees with you. As he wrote in dissent in Arizona v. U.S.,

Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result . . . . As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Scalia does not dis-agree with me because I have no vote. Scalia dis-agreed with the majority of justices he works with. Those are the people that matter.
 
1750Texan said:
That is not correct. The President[Executive branch] is delegate the power by congress to administrate rules and regulations to carry out the application of the laws written. Obama is head of HHS, ICE, and The Border Patrol and can direct each as he sees fit. That is Constitutional.

Congress has oversight and can change directives ordered by the President. Congress has not exercised that prerogative. Congress has allowed Obama's EOs to stand.
Click to expand...

1. The President is not delegated the power by Congress to administer rules and regulations. The President is delegated that power by the Constitution. Also, it is not so much a "power"...but a responsibility.

2. Obama IS the head of those agencies...yes. But he cannot do as he sees fit. He is bound, by his Oath of Office, to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.

3. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm just ignorant...but where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can "change directives ordered by the President"? Now, I know Congress can pass laws in response to actions taken by the President, but I'm thinking only the President can change his own orders.
 
Paschendale said:
Getting this country to accept the idea that healthcare doesn't need to be absurdly expensive is working out like convincing a child to eat their vegetables instead of just demanding ice cream for every meal. Actually, that's another reason why this country is so unhealthy.
Click to expand...

The ACA has been real cheap, eh?
 
Paschendale said:
Getting this country to accept the idea that healthcare doesn't need to be absurdly expensive is working out like convincing a child to eat their vegetables instead of just demanding ice cream for every meal. Actually, that's another reason why this country is so unhealthy.
Click to expand...
Actually, Obama care is more like forcing a vegan to eat a hamburger.

The problem we had was cost. Healthcare cost was out of control because of medicare/cade and SCHIP as well as the false belief that comprehensive insurance is good. So what did Obama care do? It doubled down on failed policies.
 
What people are missing here is that Obamacare was designed to fail. Once a large enough population base gets used to subsidized or even free medical care it will be impossible to take it from them no matter what the Supremes say. Medicare for all will be the "logical" fix.
 
lifeisshort said:
What people are missing here is that Obamacare was designed to fail. Once a large enough population base gets used to subsidized or even free medical care it will be impossible to take it from them no matter what the Supremes say. Medicare for all will be the "logical" fix.
Click to expand...

That in all likelihood is how Barry presented it on Air Force 1 to Dennis Kucinich to get that vote he needed.
 
The ACA has been a small baby step in the right direction. Soaring costs is the biggest problem, and, while the ACA didn't stop soaring costs, it at least slowed it down a bit. More people are covered than before. Of course, we need to have everyone covered and have access to health care, but that goal hasn't yet been achieved. All of the doom and gloom predictions of doctors leaving medical practice and hospitals closing their doors didn't happen.

There is a lot of work to be done before the US has a truly affordable health care system, but the ACA is not to blame for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom