Obamcare Doomed
 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1414191


From the Huffington Post

Could be the way the GOP puts some lip stick on the bill then change the name and call it theirs.





Barney

The article is premised upon the SCOTUS ruling in favor of Obamacare critics, which is probably a stretch.

I still believe next year ""Obama Care/ACA"" will have a name change in the GOP echo chamber (FOX NEWS) with little to no substantive changes being made. Claim it as theirs and it will be next to tax cuts for the top 1% the best ever work out of them. Their claim not mine!



Barney

Is it oh what a tangled web we weave, or chickens coming home?

Pete

No just the usual screw-up since they can't do a damn thing right.

No, it's "MINE! I THOUGHT OF THIS FIRST, YOU POOPY-PANTS! MOM! NANCY AND BARRY ARE STEALING MY IDEAS AGAIN!" :rolleyes:

The GOP needs to grow up. Seriously.

Dave

".....
I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.
...." Gruber

They knew it.

Pete

Unless he was paid to say that, after the fact.

Call it tin-foil hat if you want. It's possible, isn't it?

Who gives a fig what Dr. Gruber says? Sorry Pete, still no smoking gun. :rolleyes:

A "state" also includes the whole of the United States. Look it up. ;)

I suspect Roberts rues the day he ever let the government force somebody to buy insurance to begin with, calling it a tax or whatever.

Of course, it is hard to put milk back in the cow.

But, Obamacare will evolve quite a bit over the next few years.

I hope I am correct, but I do not think that Roberts has the stones to throw millions of people's health care into jeopardy.

You mean that there is a possibility that the people will come to their senses and adopt a single payer plan? We can but hope though I am not holding my breath.:)

You can say that again...

Thats it right there.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Ray Of Hope
 

Astroturf in action!

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2549412/th...E-large570.jpg

Hand-lettered sign, but professionally-lettered.

As for the fate of the ACA, I think the court is even less likely to want to scuttle the program than they were the last time they had the chance. And the Supreme Court finds reasons to do what it wants, and not to do what it doesn't want.

Ooops, there it is. :)

I don't think that this hyper partisan Supreme Court wants to open up this can of worms ahead of the '16 elections. Just my take on it and my .02 cents FWIW. That and a buck will get you a cuppa coffee... :o

Sham Plaintiffs King VS Burrell
 

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/new...NzAzOTYwNzkwWj



Shows how far the conservatives on the court are willing to stoop.

Beat me to it, thanks Robbin. :)

I was just reading in that lefty rag :rolleyes:, the Washington Post, about this same topic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...utiny/?hpid=z2

Looks as if all four of the plaintiffs either lack the standing to bring the suit, falsified the information they provided or both. How this case ever got this far is really inexplicable and, if the SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs, it should prove to everyone that the 1% literally own all three branches of the government.

John

I think the fact that they didn't take care to get more 'solid' plaintiffs indicates this was just a nuisance suit to begin with--that they instigators never expected it to go anywhere. Rank barratry, in other words.

Some of us already know that John.

The fact that the suits were filed is all they need. Once the media disseminates the fact that suits have been filed, the dittohead public requires no further information or legal procedure. As far as the average dumbass wingnut is concerned, the case is closed and Obama lost. A filed suit is conclusive evidence of guilt, when Obama is the defendant.

For my proof I cite the laundry list of failed cases against the administration tried by Darryl Issa and the fact that said failed cases are still presented as factual evidence of the administrations (alleged) wrongdoing.

Dave

Here is an interesting piece on gutting Obamacare by the Supremes.

Morning Plum: A Court decision gutting ACA could be a lot worse than you think

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...think/?hpid=z3

This caught my attention. There is a much bigger hidden cost.

The ACA Will ALWAYS Suck
 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6866278.html


Don't believe it even if it is true...cognitive dissonance.

Good analysis of the ideological blinders in action.

Beware The Idiots Of June
 

Quote from the subsequent link:

Two years ago, if you were one of those people who lost your coverage, you were still able to find an alternative. And thanks to the law’s regulations -- yes, the same ones that sometimes made coverage more expensive -- you at least knew that your new policy was comprehensive. It had to include all essential benefits, including mental health and prescription coverage. And it had to limit your out-of-pocket expenses. This summer, if the Supreme Court takes away your coverage, you'll end up with ... nothing. Just like that, you’ll go from the ranks of the safely insured to the ranks of the uninsured -- a far more drastic, and hazardous, transition than people experienced because of plan cancellations in 2013.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6906064.html

The issue isn't the Supreme Court, though you seem to want to set up the argument that the Supreme Court would be "to blame" if its determined that the IRS can't support subsidies in states without their own exchanges. The issue is that the law is flawed, has been flawed from the start. If it wasn't flawed, there wouldn't be these opportunities for SCOTUS to left to patch it back together - as Roberts did in 2012 - or not as we may see in June.

Its not the court's job to take defective legislation and recast it so that it reflects some imaginary intent. But don't take my word for it. Justice Kagan wrote an opinion for the case of Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community for the SCOTUS in 2013. In that case, Michigan made an argument similar to the administration: an outcome produced by poorly written legislation could not possibly have been the intent of the State Legislature. Here's Kagan's response:

“[W]hy,” Michigan queries, “would Congress authorize a state to obtain a federal injunction against illegal tribal gaming on Indian lands, but not on lands subject to the state’s own sovereign jurisdiction?” ReplyBrief 1. That question has no answer, Michigan argues: Whatever words Congress may have used in IGRA, it could not have intended that senseless outcome. See Brief for Michigan 28.

But this Court does not revise legislation, as Michigan proposes, just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.Truth be told, such anomalies often arise from statutes, if for no other reason than that Congress typically legislates by parts—addressing one thing without examining all others that might merit comparable treatment. Rejecting a similar argument that a statutory anomaly (between property and non-property taxes) made “not a whit of sense,” we explained in one recent case that “Congress wrote the statute it wrote”—meaning, a statute going so far and no further.

The same could be said of IGRA’s abrogation of tribal immunity for gaming “on Indian lands.” This Court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that (in Michigan’s words) Congress “must have intended” something broader.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-515_jq2i.pdf

What Roberts did is why we're where we are now. King v. Burwell is the direct result.

Funny how the frightwing nutjobs have been calling for CJ Roberts' head on a pike ever since. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I still think that they won't gut it. Roberts is a dyed in the wool corporatist thrall.

The Supreme Court has long upheld the original intent of legislation in areas that are vague or incorrect, traditionally siding with the executive branch so as to preserve the original intent of a law. In this case the 4 judges, who must have the intellectual world view of Fox News, are going in direct contradiction of precedent to destroy a law they oppose. Everyone at the time knew exactly what the intent of the law was and that is documented.

No shit? Roberts wrote PPACA? Wow, who knew? :rolleyes:

Uh, BS.

Further to your BS, there's every bit of evidence - both in the text of the law and elsewhere - that the intent of the law was to use leverage to get the states to create their own exchanges. PPACA authorized the availability of federal funding for states to set up their own exchanges. There's also our friend Mr Gruber, who stated that:

"I think, what’s important to remember politically about this 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 and that they'll do it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBAHvX1WdWc

Gruber? :rolleyes: You mean Romney's dude?

You don't get out much, do you Whell?

All these challenges to PPCA is made with the intent to either dilute or kill the law. Nothing else. And there are four puppets on the bench to make this easy.