Discussion: Analysis: 68 Times The CBO Undercut The SCOTUS Case Against O-Care

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #232139

2

Oh look…68 more reasons for Scalia et al to pretend the legal analysis doesn’t have to go that far!!!

16 Likes
3

This is just ridiculous. A game of semantics that risks the lives and health of millions of people. No one has ever even pretended the subsidies would be limited to states that set up their own exchanges. It insults the intelligence of a moron to act as though anyone ever considered such a stupid idea.

15 Likes
4

The assumption here seems to be that the SCOTUS will be reasonable and (more importantly) logical in its decisions concerning the O-care case before it. I am cynical enough to believe that logic will play no part in their decision.

11 Likes
5

This is the type of policy analysis that I read TPM for. I do not read it for whether Joe Biden is Uncle Creepy or whether Cosby is being mistreated more than Woody Allen.

Congratulations to Theda for her analysis.

21 Likes
6

Your facts are no match for our blind ideology.

  • SCOTUS
9 Likes
7

Don’t forget the In Dog We Trust rug and anything involving Ben Carson. Today TPM dips its toe into the investigative reporting realm.

2 Likes
8

But wait, don’t you want to know why you are vacationing all wrong, you silly American?

3 Likes
9

To bad none of that matters to the Court. They really only want to take the one line as the end all be all, at least that is what is hoped by some. Even in context it still is the interpretation everyone took, it is just in legal language that takes you in a round about way looking back at definitions.

1 Like
10

They should do more than dip their toe into investigative reporting. Come on and get that second Polk award.

2 Likes
11

This is more persuasive information on congressional intent that Scalia and his pet will ignore as they wave toward constitutional originalism in handing down their activist decision. My guess is they’ll say that because the slaves at the time were 3/5ths of a person, the framers clearly intended today’s wage slaves to only receive 3/5 the quality of health care as the landed gentry.

4 Likes
12

Once again, the Progressives don’t understand.
This is not about LAW or “what the drafters intended”. It’s about WINNING. It is about DEFEATING OBAMA. That is all.
The plaintiffs don’t give a rats ass about the Law or the ramifications. THEY WANT THEIR POUND OF FLESH and they don’t care who gets hurt in the process.

14 Likes
13

I am trying to find the right word to describe the ‘King vs Burwell’ argument. I was thinking ‘pretense’. But even that word has some implication of deception or plausibility in the pretended claim. Here there is none. The claim is phony, and everyone knows it, those for OCare, those agin it, and the judges. If SCOTUS choose to use this to stop subsidies on the federal exchange, I am not even sure it rises to even the mild standards of ‘excuse’, It will be like one of Epstein’s notes on Welcome Back Kotter, signed ‘Epstein’s mother.’

8 Likes
14

In honor of our conservative Bible thumpers, the term fig leaf seems appropriate. All they are is a Super Congress espousing Fox News talking points as jurisprudence.

1 Like
15

Well, Boener and buddies have tried to end the law about the same amount of times completely unsuccessfully and they knew the first time around that they were wasting time and money. Proving, this ain’t about smarts, the economy, the law and especially not about the consumer that wants affordable healthcare.
What is that saying about insanity again?

The UnSupremes didn’t take this case based on merit or necessity, they just want to push the idea that Obamacare is somehow illegal and magically costing taxpayers money that somehow is happening behind all facts and reality.

There is absolutely no case and this suit is as frivolous as it gets. What we have here is naked partisanship and judicial activism, plain and simple, cut and dried, done deal, in your face bold FUism.

9 Likes
16

That evidence hasn’t dissuaded the law’s opponents, who have argued invented the story that it was always Congress’s intentions to limit subsidies to state exchanges.

FIFY Dylan.

No need to thank me - anyone paying attention (including SCOTUS) knows it’s true.

3 Likes
17

It’s the conservative way…

2 Likes
18

I believe that most everyone who voted in favor of the law is still living. Why not interview each of those who voted in support of the law, whether they are still in congress or not, and find out what their intention was? This isn’t some great mystery where the Supreme Court has to try to divine the intentions of the founding fathers 200 years ago…

4 Likes
19

Just more GOP throwing around their patented bovine excretement hoping something eveil srings forth from beneath!

20

It was Justice Roberts himself who created the federal exchange by ruling that states did not have to accept Obamacare.

The real motivation for Roberts to do anything that is not exactly what the GOP wants regardless of law or facts is the fact that this will be the legacy of the “Roberts Court”. That is why while legislating a new rule in Obamacare to allow states to opt out he declared the law a “TAX” so it would be exempt from a senate fillibuster making it easier to overturn. Only Roberts concern about his legacy will I believe prevent him from going along with the other GOP hacks and in spite of the constitution and the facts gutting Obamacare.

It would be the height of argoance, lawlessness and hypocracy for Roberts to now rule that Obamacare subsidies do not apply to Federal Exchanges when in fact Roberts decision and legislating from the bench is why there is a Federal exchange.

1 Like