Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another legal setback for Obamacare

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another legal setback for Obamacare

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/23/us...dies.html?_r=0


    WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the government could not subsidize health care premiums for people in three dozen states that use the federal insurance exchange, a ruling that could upend President Obama’s health care law.

    The 2-to-1 ruling could cut potentially off financial assistance for more than 4.5 million people who were found eligible for subsidized insurance in the federal exchange, or marketplace.

    Under the Affordable Care Act, the court said, subsidies are available only to people who obtained insurance through exchanges established by states.

    The law “does not authorize the Internal Revenue Service to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal exchanges,” said the ruling, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The law, it said, “plainly makes subsidies available only on exchanges established by states.”


    So this will probably go to the full appeals court and get decided in favor of Obamas position. Then it will be off to the Supreme Court. He loses this one and Obummer is ****ed.

  • #2
    cheerleading because people might not get healthcare. ahh republicans, you patriots you

    Comment


    • #3
      USA! USA! USA!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
        cheerleading because people might not get healthcare. ahh republicans, you patriots you
        Just pointing out what a bad piece of legislation it is. Obama has some good ideas socially, but doesn't have any idea how to make them actually work.

        Comment


        • #5
          They overturned it based on a typo. Partisan hackery.

          Comment


          • #6
            A typo? The law clearly stated there was a difference between state and federal exchanges. Then said states who don't set up exchange won't get subsidies. This was because they wanted to try and make states go along with this.

            When a bunch of states didn't Obama realized his law wouldn't work, and once again decided to just do what he wanted and change it after the fact.

            To say it's a typo is a joke.

            Comment


            • #7
              Fact- there will be a state run exchange, if none you go to federal exchange.
              Fact- Law states only state exchanges get a subsidy.

              Why would they even say anything about who gets a subsidy, if everyone was getting one? They made a distinction because when written that's what they were thinking. Force states by making that the only way they could get subsidies to pay for it.

              They probably hoped that a bunch of people wouldn't get subsidies, would be pissed, and force those governors out of office. But then they saw it wouldn't work and changed their minds. Once again Obama re-writes as he see's fit.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
                A typo? The law clearly stated there was a difference between state and federal exchanges. Then said states who don't set up exchange won't get subsidies. This was because they wanted to try and make states go along with this.

                When a bunch of states didn't Obama realized his law wouldn't work, and once again decided to just do what he wanted and change it after the fact.

                To say it's a typo is a joke.
                Sorry. That's what the other judge on the panel said in his dissent. He said the other two completely made up their opinion "...out of whole cloth" and it was "nonsense." In other words, their opinion had nothing to do with the law and everything to do with partisan hackery. Since I don't care about Obamacare enough to argue about it, take it up with him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, they had to pass it to find out what was in it.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    , even the Obama backers are tired of defending the joke Obamacare, so would rather talk about something else

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BroncoLifer View Post
                      Well, they had to pass it to find out what was in it.
                      Sad but true. They go straight from that to "Well, don't go by what it says. Just let a few of us tell you what we meant. Just so we don't have to vote or anything."

                      Giving way to a whole new kind of Legislative Strategery for major legislation from now on.

                      The functional product being... if you want to reform something, just pass something that vaguely declares a willingness to fix something. Then watch your favored Imperial President fill in all the gaps that were just too difficult or unpopular to put in writing.

                      These kids are setting things in motion they can't begin to understand.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by barryr View Post
                        , even the Obama backers are tired of defending the joke Obamacare, so would rather talk about something else
                        If you can find the post where I backed Obamacare, I'll give you a dolla.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Not only was it a crap law, but as everyone knew, the administration of it would be an even bigger joke. Nobody should be shocked by this GAO finding on Obamacare, its administration, and the incompetence of Government to run a program like this equitably or honestly:

                          For 12 applicant scenarios, GAO tested “front-end” controls for verifying an
                          applicant’s identity or citizenship/immigration status.
                          Marketplace
                          applications require attestations that information provided is neither false nor
                          untrue. In its applications, GAO also stated income at a level to qualify for
                          income-based subsidies to offset premium costs and reduce cost sharing.
                          For 11 of these 12 applications, which were made by phone and online using
                          fictitious identities, GAO obtained subsidized coverage. For one application,
                          the marketplace denied coverage because GAO’s fictitious applicant did not
                          provide a Social Security number as part of the test.
                          A fraudsters wet dream. Read it all: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/upload...eport_7_22.pdf

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            rightwads demand perfection! from the get go.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
                              cheerleading because people might not get healthcare. ahh republicans, you patriots you
                              Exactly. The sole reason I won't vote for a Republican candidate any time soon. They truly and totally suck when it comes to healthcare.... suck.... Their ideas suck, their intent to tackle the problem sucks, their obsession to obstruct even incremental help to Americans without coverage suck...

                              They make me want to puke.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X