Supreme Court Will Hear New Challenge to Obamacare

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102129744

Hopefully, the Court gets it right this time. This law is horrible.

 

Not much of the law it will be without subsidies - who's gonna like it and support it?

 

I don't know why the Supreme Court would agree to go back and step in the doggie doo all over again.
John Roberts already pled the Obama case for them and invented a tax where government lawyers insisted none existed. Why wouldn't I expect them
to get it wrong once more?

Giving back the dashboard air freshener after you've stolen the car? Possibly but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

I'm not sure what the arguments are in this case, how could a subsidy be unconstitutional?

 

The law tries to use state subsidies for plans bought on the federal exchange, if I understand it right.

 

Oh I see, that's interesting, so it's a commanding state governments issue. That is usually not allowed.

 

republicans love the individual mandate, they will never let it go

if we had the public option Obama wanted and the voters voted for, this would be a non-issue, sadly Obama wanted to work with republicans and get their buy in

"Obama, GOP's Snowe work on health care compromise"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/02/health.care.compromise/

"The compromise plan would lack a government-run public health insurance option favored by Obama, but would leave the door open to adding that provision down the road under an idea proposed by Snowe, the sources said."

republicans got there way on that one, we have the individual mandate, rather then Obama's public option....

.

 

Wrong thread. This new challenge isn't about the mandate.

 

What the article doesn't explain is that the lawsuit is based on rather poor wording in the ACA regarding tax credits. Here it is from ScotusBlog:

If these tax credits are only available on exchanges that were set up and run by state governments, that would mean that subsidies can be provided only in sixteen states — not enough, the government has contended, to make the whole system economically workable.

Those sixteen states are the ones that had agreed to create their own exchanges. Because the other thirty-four states refused to create insurance exchanges, the ACA then required the federal government to step in and set up one in each of those states.

The wording may indicate that, but the obvious intent of the ACA was to provide these subsidies to everyone who qualified and not just to states who set up their own exchanges. If our five strict constructionists choose only to read what the wording of the law is and overlook the complete debate and thrust of the law, then the subsidies in states (like Georgia) would no longer be allowed and millions more would lose their insurance. Following that, it's likely the entire law would collapse. While that would make many on the right cheer that they had really "stuck it to the man", it will probably not take them too long to notice they've also shot themselves in the process.

 

nobody loses their insurance.............

they just have to pay

like the rest of us.....

 

repealing Obamacare repeals the mandate

 

Aren't conservatives swell? They're fighting hard to make insurance unaffordable for millions of people!

That'll play well: "Sure, Obama and the Dems gave you affordable insurance, but we just took it away."

From what I know of the details of the case, I will be surprised if SCOTUS sides with the plaintiffs. The legislative record is pretty clear; an editing error in the text is rarely considered sufficient cause to gut a law.

 

The problem is that their income levels are such that they can't pay like you do so they WILL lose their insurance and then we're right back where we started. Or is it that right wingers get their laughs by kicking the crutches out from under cripples and watching them tumble down? or maybe it's how they feel superior? Either way, it's sick.

 

Not my problem

If they are that poor, they qualify for other services.

 

No, they're not THAT poor, perhaps not "poor" at all but need some help with health insurance. Look on the bright side - what they "save" on health insurance, they're probably putting right back into the economy through purchases of goods and services.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!!! The wording was intended to force states to open exchanges. What they didn't forsee was states saying no thank you.

 

Perhaps so, however if states did not open exchanges, there was no intent in the law to say, "Fine. If you want to screw over the people who live there, that's ok with us." The law intended that subsidies would be part of the plan regardless of what states did or said.

 

I guess you are going under the delusion that Obama Care has made insurance more "affordable"...right? http://energycommerce.house.gov/rate-shock

Actually most people have found health insurance to be considerably more expensive since Obama Care was thrust upon us. And the worst is still to come. In 2015 rates go up again.

 

My insurance just went up 36%. What did I get for this you ask? A pamphlet in the mail telling me if I get sick to use the teledoc app to Iphone myself health instead of going to see a Dr in person. That's some IPhone 6 they have now.
Great job dems, this new expensive healthcare you gave us is great! Now I cant even see a damn nurse practitioner. I get to hold my iphone up to my chest so the Dr can hear my heartbeat! That Iphone 6 must be great!

 

What's the latest on the lawsuit on how the tax, raising revenue, originated in the Senate, that was still before the court last I heard. THAT could tank the whole thing too.

 

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you say yes that law is written to force states into the exchanges. Then you say but they never intended to screw you. Yes it was intended as a screw you.

 

Not only are you citing a highly partisan source, but it's from March 2013. Actual experience has been far better than the scaremongering predictions of conservatives and Republicans.

I'm sure you have a valid source for that claim.

Rates go up every year with or without Obamacare. But the rate increases on the exchanges are looking to be quite mellow this year -- though we won't know for sure until the final rates are released in mid-November.

 

Just watch and see how many more people would hate obamacare when they would suddenly be expected to pay for their own health insurance.

- - - Updated - - -

Well ME for one. My insurance premiums doubled, as did my deductibles and co-pays.

 

Highly partisan...so you can factually refute all they claim...right?

Yeah...thanks for asking.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/214847-average-premium-under-obamacare-to-rise-75-percent

Is there a reason why Obama delayed a bunch of provisions until after mid term elections (not that it helped any)? To ask the question is to answer it.

 

I'm sure that's the strawman propaganda being spewed by the left's butthurt talking heads. Just another page from the Democratic Party's Playbook of Lies and Falsehoods.