No, if I understand the last SCOTUS ruling on the ACA, John Roberts already conceded that the tax penalty falls within the federal government’s power to collect taxes.
My understanding is that if the government’s ability to run exchanges for states too lazy - or too politically compromised to pass legislation - to run their own is nullified, then the state-run exchanges would continue to exist but Americans in states without state-run exchanges would no longer have subsidies pay for health insurance.
Because we live in these times-- I think it underscores what we witness.
Looking back at how other POTUSs have been villified and excoriated; Clinton, JFK, FDR, Lincoln, Jackson to name some of the more obvious.
By-and-large history has expunged most of the filth thrown their way while in office-- to regard them in a light of good-to-great in terms of accomplishment or lasting legacies.
BHO’s blackness is the simplest vehicle on which hatred can hitchhike a ride. No doubt.
And it’s the simplest among us that stops for that rider.
History will eventually do the same for Barack Obama IMHO.
I have no great faith in this Supreme Court, BUT, the stocks of health insurance companies, which done very well under Obamacare, remain at or near their all-time highs. The analysts who do this for a living and the investors who have real money at stake don’t seem concerned. So the smart money believes either that the case will lose, whether on standing or on the “merits”, or that some fix will be put in place, either in Congress or at the state level. I tend to agree with them.
Well, that or I was thinking that the wealthy “job creators” are just going to trickle their wealth on down with their magic TrickleMoneyDispenser™ dispensers once they see everybody else going bankrupt and dying. Plus, with Jesus returning any day now, does anybody really care about our healthcare system all that much?
Being eligible for VA care is not the same as receiving it. My husband is eligible but VA medical benefits are now means-tested so he receives nothing. The means testing went into effect sometime in the early 2000s, just before he tried to sign up. Therefore, the plaintiffs who are veterans may still have standing.
The “standing” thing is a fun angle but I don’t think it’s going to fly. It’s true that King and Hurst would be exempt if they register with the VA but it seems neither of them have done so. I don’t think you can force them to do that. I have no idea where they live but it’s possible they live a great distance from a VA facility making the use of those benefits difficult. King may be Medicare eligible at the time of arguments and given that standing is dynamic may have to drop his complaint.
Levy will be 65 and Medicare eligible at the time of arguments. She will be exempt from all the provisions of the ACA. I don’t see SCOTUS allowing her to continue as a plaintiff given that.
But all it takes is one plaintiff and the case goes on. I think recent developments on the merits of the case are what the pro ACA folks need to bet on. Standing or no standing I think the ACA is going to get this one and survive 5 / 4 but could get a 6 / 3 victory.
Who dismissed it? The Ninth, or SCOTUS? (I don’t know the answer.)
Be that as it may: the Cali case did not have the important aspect of being a way to screw over Obama. That trumps everything, I would think. (Just as getting Bush appointed/anointed as Prez was more important than Scalia following the law/Constitution.)
The standing would be at the time of the lawsuit, to my understanding, so if there is at least ONE person with standing NOW, it should be enough. But, for prudential reasons, the Court could determine someone about to be not covered by the problem should not be the basis of a major ruling. It’s somewhat possible as an avoidance mechanism though there are others, including one based on the surprise of taking away the subsidies would be coercion on the states.
It really is at best a delay mechanism – they will find someone – but the longer the law and practice is in place, the worse it is for the opponents.
The Court has expanded standing in the past. In Roe v. Wade, the Court found that even though Roe was no longer pregnant at the time, the injury was repetitive and therefore, if they waited until there was a pregnant woman at the exact time of the hearing, the issue would never be adjudicated. I don’t know if they would apply this rule here, the circumstances are different, but it may be why the administration never challenged standing in the first place.
What is being said is: The subsidies make these people ACA eligible and therefore subjects them to the mandate. Without the subsidies they claim they would be exempt. The argument is the language in the bill does not specifically provide for the subsidies but they are being forced on plaintiffs anyway. That forces plaintiffs to either buy insurance or pay a penalty. The subsidies force a financial expense on plaintiffs.
But is that what’s going on? Hell no. These 4 plaintiffs were cherry picked simply because they were willing to do this. Luck thinks Obama is the Anti-Christ and therefor any act by him an act of the Devil. She has expressed a concern for others losing their insurance because of her actions but the religious shit trumps all with her. King is just a wingnut bastard that doesn’t care if folks lose their health care. He’s said as much. Besides he’s got government health care for himself under Medicare in a year or so and the VA right now if he wants it. He’s a low income redneck with a “fuck you I’ve got mine” disposition. No one knows much about Hurst other than he hates Obama. He’s also a low income nobody, the kind of person ACA was conceived to help, but he too will soon have Medicare and can get VA right now. Levy appears to be a dupe and a rather dishonest person. She hates Obama and seems to have lied about her income. I am sure she never makes it to DC.
That’s what’s really going on. GOP’ers want to ax ACA because it’s the work of a Democrat. They needed heartless FOX news blinded wingnut plaintiffs to make a case and they found these 4 assholes. That’s it. That’s all there is to it. GOP’ers have never cared for the underclasses ( including these 4 dupes ) and have no intention of starting now. If they cause millions to lose healthcare they’ll throw a party.
You are not wrong. If you were wrong, this case would already be dead in the water. The Robert’s Court is purely a political circus. Their relationship to law and justice is as flimsy as possible.
Jerry: “Excuse me I’d like to return this jacket.”
Teller: “Certainly. May I ask why?”
Jerry: “…For spite…”
Teller: “Spite?”
Jerry: “That’s right. I don’t care for the salesman that sold it to me.”
Teller: “I don’t think you can return an item for spite.”
Jerry: “What do you mean?”
Teller: “Well if there was some problem with the garment. If it were unsatisfactory in some way,then
we could do it for you, but I’m afraid spite doesn’t fit into any of our conditions for a refund”
Jerry: “That’s ridiculous, I want to return it. What’s the difference what the reason is.”
Teller: “Let me speak with the manager…excuse me …Bob!”
(walks over to the manager and whispers)
Teller “…spite…”(Manager walks over)
Bob: “What seems to be the problem?”
Jerry : “Well I want to return this jacket and she asked me why and I said for spite and now she
won’t take it back.”
Bob: “That’s true. You can’t return an item based purely on spite.”
Jerry:. “Well So fine then …then I don’t want it and then that’s why I’m returning it”
Bob: “Well you already said spite so…”
Jerry: “But I changed my mind…”
Bob: “No…you said spite…Too late.”
This is, in a nut’s shell, the kernel on which the plaintiffs stand, yelling to out to all, 'There! Right THERE! It says ‘Moops’. Em oh oh PEEEEE ess. That doesn’t spell ‘Moors’; Moors is spelled with an ar. I know; I. KNOW.: I’ve watched those spelling bee shows on teevee. I don’t need a college edge uhkayshun to know that the Founding Fathers agreed that if you use ar you mean ar not pee, and that spells Moops. So that’s the LAW, you libtards: Congress decided and Obummer agreed that it was the Moops who invaded Spain that time, just like it said on that show – not the Moors!
And just because there’s a whole bunch of counter dickery phraseolgy in fine print doesn’t change that. The act may use amble vents but not that one part. And I heard on radio and I read on Red State that a licensed reporter surveyed all of Congress and they all thought it was this way. It was only Lois Lerner at the IRS who said, No, it’s all a mistake, it SHOULD have read ‘Moors’ not “Moops”.
Well, if I met up with Lois Lerner, if anyone could find her, I’d say, Well, that’s just your OPINION, ma’am.
