New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

"Exchanges set up by the states"

fairsheet

Senator
The Fox/GOP's challenge to Obamacare by way of a provision therein, referring to subsidies for "exchanges set up by the states", is coming before the Supremes in a coupla weeks. Frankly, I see the Fox/GOP on this one, as the dog catching the car and then not knowing what to do with the godamned thing!

Personally, I say it's way more simple than the shoutery is trying to make it. The United States is "the states" and the states are the United States. What more do you gotta know?
 
The Fox/GOP's challenge to Obamacare by way of a provision therein, referring to subsidies for "exchanges set up by the states", is coming before the Supremes in a coupla weeks. Frankly, I see the Fox/GOP on this one, as the dog catching the car and then not knowing what to do with the godamned thing!

Personally, I say it's way more simple than the shoutery is trying to make it. The United States is "the states" and the states are the United States. What more do you gotta know?
Spoken like a true collectivist.

Why do you pay state income tax?
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
The Fox/GOP's challenge to Obamacare by way of a provision therein, referring to subsidies for "exchanges set up by the states", is coming before the Supremes in a coupla weeks. Frankly, I see the Fox/GOP on this one, as the dog catching the car and then not knowing what to do with the godamned thing!

Personally, I say it's way more simple than the shoutery is trying to make it. The United States is "the states" and the states are the United States. What more do you gotta know?
most republican governors refused to set up their own state exchanges. Ohio didn't, but OH at least accepted the ACA Medicaid expansion.....which Gov Kasich brags about.

everyone knows the SOTU case is stupid. it's a matter of 2 sub clauses not clarifying that if a state refuses to create an exchange, and lets their citizens use the fed exchange, that all still would be eligible for subsidies. and don't get me started on the plaintiffs for the case. the press found the 4 and they couldn't explain what they were representing.
 

fairsheet

Senator
most republican governors refused to set up their own state exchanges. Ohio didn't, but OH at least accepted the ACA Medicaid expansion.....which Gov Kasich brags about.

everyone knows the SOTU case is stupid. it's a matter of 2 sub clauses not clarifying that if a state refuses to create an exchange, and lets their citizens use the fed exchange, that all still would be eligible for subsidies. and don't get me started on the plaintiffs for the case. the press found the 4 and they couldn't explain what they were representing.

At this point, I'm guessing the Fox/GOP hopes it loses this one. They were probably a little taken aback when the guvmint hustled it up on their end. The Fox/GOP would prefer to leave this one hanging, than to see it actually resolved.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
At this point, I'm guessing the Fox/GOP hopes it loses this one. They were probably a little taken aback when the guvmint hustled it up on their end. The Fox/GOP would prefer to leave this one hanging, than to see it actually resolved.
agree. they don't want to be asked for their replacement to the ACA.....because they have none.
 

fairsheet

Senator
agree. they don't want to be asked for their replacement to the ACA.....because they have none.
As with the original challenge to the ACA, deciding against it would not only be a huge deal to the poor people who're depending upon it, it would be a huge negative for the Fox/GOP.

For that reason, I think the minimum we can expect is a 5-4 ruling against the Fox/GOP's challenge. But, this one calls out for a more sweeping decision, maybe 7-2?...if not an outright rejection of the plaintiffs' standing.

It's funny how the Fox/GOP has been spinning horror stories for years now, about all the harm Obamacare would cause, but when it came down to them actually finding someone who might've been harmed, they came a virtual cropper.
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
As with the original challenge to the ACA, deciding against it would not only be a huge deal to the poor people who're depending upon it, it would be a huge negative for the Fox/GOP.

For that reason, I think the minimum we can expect is a 5-4 ruling against the Fox/GOP's challenge. But, this one calls out for a more sweeping decision, maybe 7-2?...if not an outright rejection of the plaintiffs' standing.

It's funny how the Fox/GOP has been spinning horror stories for years now, about all the harm Obamacare would cause, but when it came down to them actually finding someone who might've been harmed, they came a virtual cropper.
as I understand it, cases that were all about legislative language in the past have been simply returned by SCOTUS to congress to fix. let's see if Roberts can do something simple like that.
 

fairsheet

Senator
as I understand it, cases that were all about legislative language in the past have been simply returned by SCOTUS to congress to fix. let's see if Roberts can do something simple like that.

Just musing but...I guess the problem with that is that this Congress won't be inclined to "fix" it. But then, it'll probably make for a good Hillary/Dem campaign angle.
 
It is abundantly clear that the intent of the bill was to subsidize the people in the states. If you think not, explain the presence of all these subsidized exchanges and people. If the SCOTUS decides against the subsidies because of a poor choice of words then we have lost all sense of rational governance. We will become purely a nation of partisan hacks. Roberts must understand this simple trap laid for him. If he overturns the law, his court will be judged like the Taney court.
 

Jen

Senator
The Fox/GOP's challenge to Obamacare by way of a provision therein, referring to subsidies for "exchanges set up by the states", is coming before the Supremes in a coupla weeks. Frankly, I see the Fox/GOP on this one, as the dog catching the car and then not knowing what to do with the godamned thing!

Personally, I say it's way more simple than the shoutery is trying to make it. The United States is "the states" and the states are the United States. What more do you gotta know?
Let me explain it to you.
Leftists are salivating at the thought of the SCOTUS finding that the subsidies given out are illegal (which they are) because then a million or so people will suddenly not be able to afford their insurance AND those people ( who are largely ignorant of what's going on) will blame the Republicans if the Leftists tell them to do that.

The Leftist Democrat party is so entrenched in the "lies R good" that they have no moral compunction against doing something illegal and when caught blaming someone else.
They count on people being stupid. Heck, they've said it out loud..................... and the ignorant either didn't hear it or are sticking their thumbs up their butts and saying "Yep. We is stupid"

So if the Republicans seem to be like the dog who actually catches the car it's because they are trying to figure out to save those poor idiots that trusted the Leftist Democrat plan that was no good.
 

fairsheet

Senator
Let me explain it to you.
Leftists are salivating at the thought of the SCOTUS finding that the subsidies given out are illegal (which they are) because then a million or so people will suddenly not be able to afford their insurance AND those people ( who are largely ignorant of what's going on) will blame the Republicans if the Leftists tell them to do that.

The Leftist Democrat party is so entrenched in the "lies R good" that they have no moral compunction against doing something illegal and when caught blaming someone else.
They count on people being stupid. Heck, they've said it out loud..................... and the ignorant either didn't hear it or are sticking their thumbs up their butts and saying "Yep. We is stupid"

So if the Republicans seem to be like the dog who actually catches the car it's because they are trying to figure out to save those poor idiots that trusted the Leftist Democrat plan that was no good.
Thanks for your "explanation".
 

Addy

Rebuild With Biden!
They could just go a beggin' online to strangers like this Anti-Obamacare former sheriff has done....

Anti-Obamacare Former Sheriff Now Begging for Money to Help Pay Medical Bills
It’s no secret that most conservatives are not fans of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). In reality, millions of conservatives are actually big fans of the law considering they’re benefitting from it - they’ve just been pumped full of so much propaganda and blatant lies for the last several years that I’m convinced many of them would still oppose the law even if their lives were saved by it.

While I am indeed a supporter of the law, I am well aware that it has many flaws. The truth is, all the ACA was meant to be was a stepping stone toward true universal health care. You know, just like the vast majority of the modernized world already has. But instead of working on ways to fix it to make it even better, we’re still dealing with conservatives who are actively trying to impede and sabotage the law at every turn.

Well, in what can be seen as a true definition of irony, a somewhat well-known anti-Obamacare critic, former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, has apparently created a GoFundMe campaign asking for at least$30,000 to pay his medical expenses. I say “at least” because there’s a disclaimer stating that his expenses could be much more than that.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/anti-obamacare-former-sheriff-now-begging-money-help-pay-medical-bills/
 

Addy

Rebuild With Biden!
The Fox/GOP's challenge to Obamacare by way of a provision therein, referring to subsidies for "exchanges set up by the states", is coming before the Supremes in a coupla weeks. Frankly, I see the Fox/GOP on this one, as the dog catching the car and then not knowing what to do with the godamned thing!

Personally, I say it's way more simple than the shoutery is trying to make it. The United States is "the states" and the states are the United States. What more do you gotta know?
The GOPs' political scenario is a losing proposition for them. Those repubs signed up and liking their Obamacare, gonna be royally hostile at those insisting it be taken away.....
--------

Republicans In Freak Out Mode Over Obamacare Challenge

If the court agrees with them and rules that only those purchasing from state exchanges are eligible for the subsidies, two things can happen: either 8 million people – Republicans included – would lose their subsidies and, in many cases, lose their health insurance because it would be too expensive. Or, the governors of the states that have refused to participate, fearing a backlash, would sign on to the ACA.

Either would spell disaster for GOP hopes in 2016.

snip ---

The decision from the court will be handed down this summer. In the meantime, Republicans are scrambling to find a solution to the problem they created.
The White House has said it will do nothing to prevent the disruption that will result from a favorable ruling from the Court. It will, after all, be the best advertisement for electing another Democrat by illustrating in concrete terms just how clueless the Republicans are.
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/03/republicans-in-freak-out-mode-over-obamacare-challenge/
 

fairsheet

Senator
The GOPs' political scenario is a losing proposition for them. Those repubs signed up and liking their Obamacare, gonna be royally hostile at those insisting it be taken away.....
--------

Republicans In Freak Out Mode Over Obamacare Challenge

If the court agrees with them and rules that only those purchasing from state exchanges are eligible for the subsidies, two things can happen: either 8 million people – Republicans included – would lose their subsidies and, in many cases, lose their health insurance because it would be too expensive. Or, the governors of the states that have refused to participate, fearing a backlash, would sign on to the ACA.

Either would spell disaster for GOP hopes in 2016.

snip ---

The decision from the court will be handed down this summer. In the meantime, Republicans are scrambling to find a solution to the problem they created.
The White House has said it will do nothing to prevent the disruption that will result from a favorable ruling from the Court. It will, after all, be the best advertisement for electing another Democrat by illustrating in concrete terms just how clueless the Republicans are.
http://samuel-warde.com/2015/03/republicans-in-freak-out-mode-over-obamacare-challenge/
The Fox/GOP seems to feel that people will just suck it up if they lose their health insurance, in favor of poking a stick in the Democrats' eye. That's silly. IF the Court decides this one in favor* of the Fox/GOP, the only logical conclusion of those in need of health insurance, will be that they need to elect a Dem president and congress in 2016.

*It's not gonna...but what the heck?...it's fun to argue this one!
 
Rich lawyers making it certain that the poor and working classes never see a doctor unless an EMT introduces them in the ER.
 

Addy

Rebuild With Biden!
Hurray for this...

Justice Sotomayor May Have Just Saved Obamacare
Justice Sonia Sotomayor proved herself to be every much as clever a law student as ever in hearing the arguments over the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. In his arguments against the law, attorney Michael Carvin presented the argument that the citizens of the states who opted not to set up the exchanges should not have access to the tax subsidies associated with those exchanges. His exchange became so energetic that NPR’s Nina Totenberg said he argued with “red-faced passion.” And then he had his entire argument collapse before him when the F word appeared.

Federalism.
Justice Sotomayor tore his argument apart with only a few choice words, but powerful words they were.
If we read it the way you’re saying, then we’re going to read the statute as intruding on the federal-state relationship, because then the states are going to be coerced into establishing their own exchanges.
So, let’s review. If the court were to accept the plaintiff’s argument on the case, then they would need to effectively strip away the states autonomy and independence from the federal, as the ACA did enable states to opt in, or out, of having the federal government handle their exchanges for them.

Not finished, Justice Sotomayor described his arguments as creating a death spiral, which would cause the entire system to collapse in upon itself. She even cited the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling on the ACA, discussing the Medicaid eligibility requirements. In closing, she effectively left his argument in shreds before her, she then put the usual conservative, states-rights judges in the corner.

snip --------------

The conservative justices seemed to be trying to come up with any alternative solution. Justice Alito floated the idea of a stay of judgement to enable Congress to correct the bill, leaving it as/is on a technicality but with the judicial order to rework the troublesome provisions. Scalia regularly interrupted Mr. Calvin’s arguments, pointing out at one point, that “If interpreting it one way is unconstitutional, you interpret it the other way.”
In short, Michael Carvin walked out of that courtroom already a loser.
Now, it may have a surprise ending, but if the legal experts are right, and they usually are, the case is over.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/07/sotomayor-saves-obamacare/
 
Top