Yet another Obama lawless action...

desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I am a bit surprised to see no discussion of this. This is probably headed to the supreme court, and it seems probable to me that the Supremes will rule that it is illegal for the feds to subsidize insurance on the federal exchange. That will kill ACA.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/federal-appeals-court-invalidates-some-obamacare-subsidies-in-blow-to-health/

Still, the D.C. court ruling nevertheless strikes at the foundation of the law by challenging subsidies that millions of people obtained through the federally run exchange known as HealthCare.gov.


The suit maintained that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts subsidies to state-run exchanges -- of which there are only 14 -- and does not authorize them to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run system.


The court agreed.


“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly,” the ruling stated.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
You need to listen to more that just the news to understand this country.

The same day, not 2 hours later, another Court ruled exactly the opposite.

Federal appeals courts issue contradictory rulings on health-law subsidies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/federal-appeals-court-panel-deals-major-blow-to-health-law/2014/07/22/c86dd2ce-06a5-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a major part of the federal health-care law Tuesday, ruling that the insurance subsidies that help millions of Americans pay for coverage are illegal in three dozen states.

Less than two hours later, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, handed down a contradictory ruling on the issue in a separate case, raising the possibility of yet another high-stakes battle over the law playing out before the Supreme Court.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
greenlikemoney said:
"You need to pass this bill so you can see what is in it."

LMFAO, snake oil saleswoman of the century.
Click to expand...
Bullshit.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/17/david_gregory_asks_pelosi_about_pass_the_bill_so_you_can_find_out_whats_in_it_comment.html
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy." Rep. N. Pelosi

DAVID GREGORY: And hasn't that idea, that you have to pass it before you know what's in it, isn't that really the problem, as you look back on it? That the-- there was such a rush to get this done, no Republicans voting for it, and now there are unintended effects of this that were foreseen at the time that you couldn't know the impact of it. And now this is coming home to roost.

REP. NANCY PELOSI: No. What I was saying there is we are House and the Senate. We get a bill. We go to conference or we ping-pong it, and then you see what the final product is. However, I stand by what I said there. When people see what is in the bill, they will like it. And they will.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
SCOTUS will always rule whatever protects their personal interests. The highest court in the land has long since been lost to corruption.
 
sub-zero234

sub-zero234

Member
nancy Pelosi... harry reid...we have too many morons decideing things they have no damn business decideing...just wait...if we decide to back Ukraine against Russia, then you will really see the shyt hit the fan...my father is ex-military..he knows this stuff
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
This is not a simple "reading of the Law" issue.

The DEMS want to say, "Oh, that was some inadvertent language that is cleared up by the total intent of the Bill."

Well. That is not it. This is a Constitutional issue of burden shifting and States Rights. The Law had to say the States make the call. Everyone has known about this, and now we get the testing of the Concept before SCOTUS.

SCOTUS said this was a tax on people, goods and services in the Medical Business. The Fed can give all kinds of tax breaks on the IRS forms, but can they shift the burden of paying the subsidies to the 32 States that have no State exchanges?

SCOTUS has to say, if that is still just legal tax burden shifting. They can now rule on the question of un-funded mandate for State Subisidies if they went to a Federal exchange.

They can rule if this Federal Exchange is even legal without the Participation of all the States.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
sub-zero234 said:
I completely agree with you...this country of ours is going from bad to nutty..it all bothers me a great deal
Click to expand...
No. They want to bug you. That gets you up to vote, hopefully. They do this on purpose and every generation says the same this.
 
R

reasonevangelist

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
This is not a simple "reading of the Law" issue.

The DEMS want to say, "Oh, that was some inadvertent language that is cleared up by the total intent of the Bill."

Well. That is not it. This is a Constitutional issue of burden shifting and States Rights. The Law had to say the States make the call. Everyone has known about this, and now we get the testing of the Concept before SCOTUS.

SCOTUS said this was a tax on people, goods and services in the Medical Business. The Fed can give all kinds of tax breaks on the IRS forms, but can they shift the burden of paying the subsidies to the 32 States that have no State exchanges?

SCOTUS has to say, if that is still just legal tax burden shifting. They can now rule on the question of un-funded mandate for State Subisidies if they went to a Federal exchange.

They can rule if this Federal Exchange is even legal without the Participation of all the States.
Click to expand...
and like so many times before, they will rule whatever protects themselves and their investments, and not what is Actually, Factually Correct, just like they did the last time they had to make a ruling about cannabis, and just like how they recently unanimously decided that our bill of rights should be interpreted as privileges, not rights.

How can ALL of them agree with contradicting the constitution?

IMO, they have hereby invalidated their own authority, and are now acting as usurpers.

But since they're the top of the chain, who can do anything about it?
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
SCOTUS will always rule whatever protects their personal interests. The highest court in the land has long since been lost to corruption.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. We have the only totally, legally independent Judiciary in the world.

You can't point to any corruption of SCOTUS. So, you just wave hand and claim slogans.
 
sub-zero234

sub-zero234

Member
I do not support obamacare...and I never will..a lot of people I know lost their GOOD AFFORDABLE healthcare because of this..instead of paying 400.00 a month, now they have to pay 1500 a month...that's b.s
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
reasonevangelist said:
and like so many times before, they will rule whatever protects themselves and their investments, and not what is Actually, Factually Correct, just like they did the last time they had to make a ruling about cannabis, and just like how they recently unanimously decided that our bill of rights should be interpreted as privileges, not rights.

How can ALL of them agree with contradicting the constitution?

IMO, they have hereby invalidated their own authority, and are now acting as usurpers.

But since they're the top of the chain, who can do anything about it?
Click to expand...
How can you say what is Constitutional? You don't have the training or experience. That is why we have an Independent Judiciary.

It is to save us from the likes of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top