ACA is working?

Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
In self rule, you can't force States to do anything very easily. We will see.

People expect this to be a subsidy insurance if you can't afford it. "All these poor people, un-insured." The States cannot be forced to do that perhaps. We will see.

---------------------
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/212950-appeals-court-strikes-blow-against-obamacare-subsidies
A federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down one of the pillars of ObamaCare, ruling that the law’s premium subsidies are invalid in more than two-dozen states.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not permit the IRS to distribute premium subsidies in the federal ObamaCare exchange, meaning those consumers must bear the full cost of their insurance.

"Because we conclude that the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges 'established by the State,' we reverse the district court and vacate the IRS’s regulation," the court said in its ruling.


Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/212950-appeals-court-strikes-blow-against-obamacare-subsidies#ixzz38DQRYLyM
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
 
Last edited:
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
I think the ACA will do just as was intended.... bankrupt the insurance industry.

This will create a crisis that will require one of two opposite actions, revert back to a time when we got great care to the most important 80% of people, or launch a massively expensive single payer system.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
I think the ACA will do just as was intended.... bankrupt the insurance industry.

This will create a crisis that will require one of two opposite actions, revert back to a time when we got great care to the most important 80% of people, or launch a massively expensive single payer system.
Click to expand...
The government will not be happy until medical care is forced under the table. There will be SWAT teams specially trained to take down the black market clinics... Single payer or bust!!
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
And, not 2 hours later, the 4th District ruled on another Case. They UPHELD almost exactly the argument the D.C. District just DENIED. The Rough and Tumble of Federal Law.

“With only sixteen state-run Exchanges currently in place,” the court explains, “the economic framework supporting the Act would crumble if the credits were unavailable on federal Exchanges. Furthermore, without an exception to the individual mandate, millions more Americans unable to purchase insurance without the credits would be forced to pay a penalty that Congress never envisioned imposing on them. The IRS Rule avoids both these unforeseen and undesirable consequences and thereby advances the true purpose and means of the Act.” As Judge Gregory concludes, “[c]onfronted with the Act’s ambiguity, the IRS crafted a rule ensuring the credits’ broad availability and furthering the goals of the law. In the face of this permissible construction, we must defer to the IRS Rule.” In the end, the battle between the Fourth Circuit and the DC Circuit is a battle over who gets to make law. Normally, that power rests with Congress, but when a law is ambiguous, the Supreme Court has long recognized that courts should defer to the Executive Branch."
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
And, not 2 hours later, the 4th District ruled on another Case. They UPHELD almost exactly the argument the D.C. District just DENIED. The Rough and Tumble of Federal Law.

“With only sixteen state-run Exchanges currently in place,” the court explains, “the economic framework supporting the Act would crumble if the credits were unavailable on federal Exchanges. Furthermore, without an exception to the individual mandate, millions more Americans unable to purchase insurance without the credits would be forced to pay a penalty that Congress never envisioned imposing on them. The IRS Rule avoids both these unforeseen and undesirable consequences and thereby advances the true purpose and means of the Act.” As Judge Gregory concludes, “[c]onfronted with the Act’s ambiguity, the IRS crafted a rule ensuring the credits’ broad availability and furthering the goals of the law. In the face of this permissible construction, we must defer to the IRS Rule.” In the end, the battle between the Fourth Circuit and the DC Circuit is a battle over who gets to make law. Normally, that power rests with Congress, but when a law is ambiguous, the Supreme Court has long recognized that courts should defer to the Executive Branch."
Click to expand...
So basically, you have one court that judged the law based on the language as it was written. Then you have another that, to their shame, admittedly judged it based on wanting to help the law survive and a psychic "feel" about what was going through the crafters' minds as they wrote it. Of course they, like everyone else, have no idea exactly who those people are OR what they actually wanted.

Perfect example of the difference between rational interpretation of the law and liberal activism with some judicial partisanship thrown in for good measure. Never mind that they fucked up the language and how it should go back to Congress for clarification, we can't get what we want in the H.O.R. anymore so we'll just make shit up.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
How will the Supremes vote? Cuz that's where this is going next.

BTW, Obama exempted all the US territories from the ACA, just sayin.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Mmm, I hate to be the one to say "I told you so".

Progressives lie, then they lie about lying. Lying liars.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—the second highest court in the land—ruled that Obamacare’s subsidies for individually-purchased insurance could only flow through exchanges set up by state governments. Because only 16 states set up their own exchanges, some on the left are hyperventilating that “right-wing judges” are trying “to gut Obamacare” using “cynical” and “shamefully dishonest” tactics. But now, a 2012 video has emerged of the architect of Obamacare—MIT economist Jonathan Gruber—agreeing that only state exchanges are eligible for subsidies. Does that make Gruber a “shamefully dishonest” Obamacare-gutter?

Gruber was paid more than $400,000 as a White House consultant during the design and passage of the Affordable Care Act. Gruber then set up a lucrative business consulting for state governments like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Colorado on how to set up their own exchanges. On January 18, 2012, Gruber spoke before the Noblis Innovation and Collaboration Center, headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia.

Gruber then: subsidies only flow through state-based exchanges

In his remarks, Gruber urged state governments to set up their own health insurance exchanges. A member of the audience asked: “It’s my understanding that if states don’t provide [exchanges], then the federal government will provide them for the states.”

Gruber responded: “What’s important to remember politically about [Obamacare] is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.” (Emphasis added.)
Click to expand...

WOOPS.

Why, that means the plain language of the law was intentional. Uh, oh.
 
C

CaretakerDad

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
I think the ACA will do just as was intended.... bankrupt the insurance industry.

This will create a crisis that will require one of two opposite actions, revert back to a time when we got great care to the most important 80% of people, or launch a massively expensive single payer system.
Click to expand...

Do tell.......could you please help me to identify the "most important 80% of people"? Sounds like the dreaded "death panels" to me.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Mmm, I hate to be the one to say "I told you so".

Progressives lie, then they lie about lying. Lying liars.




WOOPS.

Why, that means the plain language of the law was intentional. Uh, oh.
Click to expand...
Plenty of lying all around. Ted Cruz was only CNN last night accusing Obama of shutting down flights to Israel for politics. WRONG! It was the Carriers themselves that begin to divert flights in mid-air. Then other Carriers also suspended flights. Then the rank and file Carriers appeal to the FAA for a ruling. The FAA can turn on a dime as we saw in 9/11.

Then Obama had to call the FAA and say WTF??? "That amounts to an air embargo against our pals in Israel.. Knock that shit off!"

That didn't stop Cruz from the Lie180 rule.

SCOTUS will tell us what are the lies. I don't believe anything but their rulings.
 
earnest_voice

earnest_voice

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Plenty of lying all around. Ted Cruz was only CNN last night accusing Obama of shutting down flights to Israel for politics. WRONG! It was the Carriers themselves that begin to divert flights in mid-air. Then other Carriers also suspended flights. Then the rank and file Carriers appeal to the FAA for a ruling. The FAA can turn on a dime as we saw in 9/11.

Then Obama had to call the FAA and say WTF??? "That amounts to an air embargo against our pals in Israel.. Knock that shit off!"

That didn't stop Cruz from the Lie180 rule.

SCOTUS will tell us what are the lies. I don't believe anything but their rulings.
Click to expand...
Actually it was the joint release by European Union, American and Australian Aviation safety regulators and only applied to one airport, ben gurion.

https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/strong-recommendation-avoid-tel-aviv-ben-gourion-international-airport

Rescinded the following day (24th) http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/SIB_201422R1_Operations_Ben_Gurion_Intl_Airport.pdf/SIB_2014-22R1_1

No air embargo - a clear safety consideration
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
CaretakerDad said:
Do tell.......could you please help me to identify the "most important 80% of people"? Sounds like the dreaded "death panels" to me.
Click to expand...
They are the people who produce the goods and services this country needs. They are the ones who make it possible by financing it.
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
CaretakerDad said:
And the rest would be worthless and should be left to die?
Click to expand...
Those who don't work, don't eat. Or shouldn't, at least.

To obtain healthcare in the pre ACA days all you had to do was get a full time job. It wasn't that difficult. You had to not be a total waste of humanity.

So yeah, some people should just be left to die.
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
Its really not hard to make a living. All you have to do is get out there and bump into a lot of things, some of them will move. When one does, keep bumping it and money falls out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top