Discussion for article #225555
Remember when Mitt Romneyâs campaign would parse every utterance, eliminate the context, then spend days and days trying to convince the media that Obama had committed an epic gaffe that would end his chances of being re-elected?
This is the same thing.
18 Likes
The 4 dissenters in the prior SCrOTUS case already stated that the subsidies would apply to everyone and described in detail the mechanism and importance.
That wouldnât stop those craven fucks from turning on a dime to hurt Obama, but itâs right there in writing.
10 Likes
In other words:
âWe write laws to say something, get them passed, then change the meaning of these laws via âinterpretationâ by favorable courts to mean whatever we feel is appropriate at the moment.â
Continuing with the news about Obamacare thereâs this latest terrible development:
25 Likes
Itâs socialism! Send the national guard to stop this outrage!
8 Likes
There are many ways of discerning legislative intent in determining how to make a judicial ruling interpreting a law. None of them involve parsing remarks made by people who have never been legislators made many, many months after the law in question was passed.
16 Likes
Nope.
Youâre not very good at this, and you should quit while youâre behind.
4 Likes
The states that didnât expand Medicaid have to continue to pay taxes for the states that did expand. The states were intentionally screwing their citizens. The tax credit is something that applies regardless of Medicaid expansion.
This argument remind me of Christine OâDonnell when she pointed out that the WORDS âseparation of church and stateâ were not written in the Constitution so âtechnicallyâ there is no separation of the two.
5 Likes
Thank you for this.
1 Like
Is the Court going use what the Congress intended as the determining factor? That how it should be. They just have to ask Congress
2 Likes
Republicans know there are no mistakes â only grand conspiracies that span galaxies.
5 Likes
It seems to me that Gruber was saying in 2012 that if the feds did not have their substitute âstate exchangesâ ready, there would be a chronological gap in readiness to provide subsidies, referring to subsidies that clearly were provided for in the law. I see nothing, nothing at all in his 2012 statements that support the recent DC Circuit Court interpretation.
4 Likes
Is it really so hard to admit that he might have misspoke? Hereâs how it is done:
Q: âDidnât you say X before?â
A: âI donât recall that I did say X, however, if I did, I was mistaken. Y is correct.â
Itâs better than err, oh, it is like a typo⌠Duh.
2 Likes
I wouldnât imagine the mind would tend to wander after discussing an issue as riveting as health care policy day after day for years and years. I just canât imagine.
1 Like
I blame politicians like John Conyers for this mess. Conyers said, âI love these members that get up and say âread the bill.â What good is reading the bill if itâs a thousand pages and you donât have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?â
Also, there is no separation of mosque and state, or of synagogue and state, so the SCrOTUS should be funding government synagogues and mosques.
1 Like
Glad to absorb his mistake here, pre existing condition and now covered with the top tier Blue Shield offering.
3 Likes
The sentence in the law about subsidies made available to insurance exchanges established by the state does NOT include the word âonlyâ, and doesnât mention the federal exchanges at all. If you want to get picky and litigious over parsing sentences, it works the other way, too. Thereâs nothing in the law that rules out subsidies for those getting insurance through federal exchanges. The law probably doesnât say it explicitly because it kind of goes without saying to anyone whoâs not an idiot or a deranged Obama hater, which I gather from your screen name, you are.
7 Likes
Good girl. Thanks for posting
1 Like