Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

• QuakerOats

  Hospital and insurance company stock prices are soaring on the news. How ironic, 100% liberal democrat legislation benefiting the very entities that liberals despise and demonize ..........all at the expense of patients, doctors, and taxpayers.
  
  This proves yet again that liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
  
  I look forward to the coming revolt by those who have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to buy bronze plans with $15,000 deductibles .......... the breaking point is near.
  
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...
• Commander of Awesome

  

  SportsAndLady;1737209 wrote:Even the people I know who have Obama care aren't thrilled with this decision. Lol

  Lol I was just bringing up its been Defended twice now by the SCOTUS. I'd imagine it's not the end of the fight tho.
• gut

  So what happens when the federal sugar daddy stops providing the subsidies and the states have to pick-up the tab? If I'm not mistaken, that date was conveniently pushed out until 2016 sometime.
  
  I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but I thought the language and intent were quite clear and that the SCOTUS would actually rule based on law and not agenda.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  So bc you don't like their ruling on a narrow section, they now have an agenda? What did the law say gut, and how did they ignore it?
  
  This outta be good for a lol
• gut

  Commander of Awesome;1737265 wrote:So bc you don't like their ruling on a narrow section, they now have an agenda? What did the law say gut, and how did they ignore it?
  
  This outta be good for a lol

  The language was absolutely plain "subsidy for state exchanges". And it was plainly clear that it was put in to pressure states to set-up exchanges, and Hans Gruber and others admitted as much (in fact, the language was originally not in, and then added in all final versions). It backfired and the SCOTUS bailed them out, just like they did on the bogus tax ruling.
  
  Nobody has really been under the illusion that the SCOTUS isn't a political body more than a judicial one, which is why it's such a big deal to be able to appoint a new Justice.
  
  Maybe bother yourself to read Scalia's dissent rather than your typical ignorant trolling. In fact, Roberts pretty much confirms what I'm saying when he took Scalia's argument in the prior case out of context to conclude "it's clear Congress never meant the law to function without subsidies". EXCEPT THAT"S NOT SCOTUS JOB!!! And it's clear they DID intend for that language, they intended to force/blackmail states to establish exchanges. It's is 100% the job of Congress to write, and revise if necessary, the laws. The SCOTUS doesn't get to come in and say "oh, ignore that language that was a mistake".
• FatHobbit

  

  From the dissenting opinion
  

  The dissenting justice argued that the Court was attempting to rescue the law by ignoring the statute’s messy contradictions that plaintiffs had argued would make millions of people ineligible for subsidies. Scalia argued that three years ago, the majority used “interpretative somersaults” to save the health care law’s individual mandate, and now it was doing the same thing to save the subsidies.
  
  “The cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites,” Scalia said.

• gut

  And lmao over the hand-wringing of "6.4M people losing their insurance". That's an abject failure by the goals/standards of Obamacare. And it would be far cheaper just to throw those people onto Medicare, and not disrupt everything for 300M others. The singular good aspect of the law could have been covered in just a few pages (as opposed to 2000+) making it illegal for insurers to screen/group/deny people based on pre-existing conditions.
• FatHobbit

  

  gut;1737281 wrote: The singular good aspect of the law could have been covered in just a few pages (as opposed to 2000+) making it illegal for insurers to screen/group/deny people based on pre-existing conditions.

  I think that (eliminating preexisting conditions) only works if you force everyone to have insurance. Otherwise nobody would buy insurance until they needed it.
• gut

  FatHobbit;1737288 wrote:I think that (eliminating preexisting conditions) only works if you force everyone to have insurance. Otherwise nobody would buy insurance until they needed it.

  Not necessarily. It's not as simple as I laid out, but workable. A big part of the problem was people being dropped or having exorbitant rate spikes. And while those people make up a disproportionate % of costs, for most people you're going to have an event that's neither chronic nor ongoing that would cost you tens of thousands of dollars.
  
  Like one of the novel caveats you could implement is "catch-up" premiums for all the time since you were last insured, maybe with a penalty/interest. That's not going to be perfect, either, but there are certainly many things that could be done to remove the incentive issue you raised.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  gut;1737269 wrote:The language was absolutely plain "subsidy for state exchanges". And it was plainly clear that it was put in to pressure states to set-up exchanges, and Hans Gruber and others admitted as much (in fact, the language was originally not in, and then added in all final versions). It backfired and the SCOTUS bailed them out, just like they did on the bogus tax ruling.
  
  Nobody has really been under the illusion that the SCOTUS isn't a political body more than a judicial one, which is why it's such a big deal to be able to appoint a new Justice.
  
  Maybe bother yourself to read Scalia's dissent rather than your typical ignorant trolling. In fact, Roberts pretty much confirms what I'm saying when he took Scalia's argument in the prior case out of context to conclude "it's clear Congress never meant the law to function without subsidies". EXCEPT THAT"S NOT SCOTUS JOB!!! And it's clear they DID intend for that language, they intended to force/blackmail states to establish exchanges. It's is 100% the job of Congress to write, and revise if necessary, the laws. The SCOTUS doesn't get to come in and say "oh, ignore that language that was a mistake".

  6 ppl a hell of a lot smarter than you disagree.
• superman

  Legislation bring introduced to force Supreme Court justices to enroll in Obamacare.
• like_that

  

  Commander of Awesome;1737300 wrote:6 ppl a hell of a lot smarter than you disagree.

  Just like any candidate that is running for president is smarter than you. What is your point?
• gut

  Commander of Awesome;1737300 wrote:6 ppl a hell of a lot smarter than you disagree.

  And 3 agreed...and really it's only 1-2 who's votes are ever in doubt. And how do you know they're smarter than me - it's a political appointment, not merit based.
  
  But in other words you made a comment without really knowing shit about what you were talking about.
• cruiser_96

  

  gut;1737269 wrote:The language was absolutely plain "subsidy for state exchanges". And it was plainly clear that it was put in to pressure states to set-up exchanges, and Hans Gruber and others admitted as much (in fact, the language was originally not in, and then added in all final versions). It backfired and the SCOTUS bailed them out, just like they did on the bogus tax ruling.
  
  Nobody has really been under the illusion that the SCOTUS isn't a political body more than a judicial one, which is why it's such a big deal to be able to appoint a new Justice.
  
  Maybe bother yourself to read Scalia's dissent rather than your typical ignorant trolling. In fact, Roberts pretty much confirms what I'm saying when he took Scalia's argument in the prior case out of context to conclude "it's clear Congress never meant the law to function without subsidies". EXCEPT THAT"S NOT SCOTUS JOB!!! And it's clear they DID intend for that language, they intended to force/blackmail states to establish exchanges. It's is 100% the job of Congress to write, and revise if necessary, the laws. The SCOTUS doesn't get to come in and say "oh, ignore that language that was a mistake".

  You nailed it, gut. This is precisely the situation. This is reality.
• QuakerOats

  Commander of Awesome;1737300 wrote:6 ppl a hell of a lot smarter than you disagree.

  
  6 people with a liberal agenda you mean.
  
  A disastrous ruling to help save the most disastrous legislation ever passed.
  
  What a complete clusterfuck that ultimately ruins the greatest health care in the world.
• Spock

  

  shouldn't legislate from the bench
• superman

  I think it's time for a Constitutional amendment limiting the term of a Supreme Court Justice to 15 years.
• sleeper

  

  FatHobbit;1737273 wrote:From the dissenting opinion

  That says it all right there. SCOTUS will defend Obamacare no matter what challenges it faces.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Congrats to Tiernan and the rest of the gay's on the Supreme Court ruling this morning.
• like_that

  

  That's a decision I'm down with. Now hopefully the next move is to remove government from marriage completely.
• SportsAndLady

  

  like_that;1737423 wrote:That's a decision I'm down with. Now hopefully the next move is to remove government from marriage completely.

  Same.
• sleeper

  

  like_that;1737423 wrote:That's a decision I'm down with. Now hopefully the next move is to remove government from marriage completely.

  Agreed. Long overdue.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  like_that;1737423 wrote:That's a decision I'm down with. Now hopefully the next move is to remove government from marriage completely.

  This. Starting with the fucking tax breaks.
• Wolves of Babylon

  I hope the sanctity of my marriage can withstand this onslaught from the gays
  
  Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk
• fish82

  

  Gay Rage continues to march forward as the most Powerful Force in the Country right now.
  
  That said, I give the ruling a "thumbs up," mostly from looking forward to having both sides STFU about it.