We LIBtards take it for granted that everyone we rail at reads TPM and therefore comes away chastened and vowing to be a better person pronto.
12 Likes
ConSIder yOURself CHastiSed RIghtArd!!!11twoones!!11
jw1
4 Likes
I made a similar point yesterday with regard to a commenter who thought that we should only put up unelectable progressives to show America just how bad a Republican supermajority would be:
Agreed. Things have to get totally awful before they can get better
because independents wonât vote Republican when they find out just how
bad Republicans behave when given the authority to do so. Theyâll own
the mess and all of America, who really give a shit about politics and
vote in 100% of elections and remember what happened last week, nay last
year, will vote in a permanent Democratic majority forever until we
evolve into morloks and eloi (God I hope Iâm a morlock).
4 Likes
As you say, we Libtards are completely surprised you CONS can read at all. Anything.
If I were in the position of having my familyâs insurance stripped away by this nefarious bullshit, Iâm not saying Iâd consider 2nd Amendment remedies. Iâm saying Iâd employ 2nd Amendment remedies. HeyâŚif theyâre gonna threaten my familyâs life, well, Katie bar the fucking door.
The GOP is pure evil. It must be treated accordingly.
2 Likes
You might want to figure out who youâre replying to and reconsider your retort.
3 Likes
But here is a pretty sticky issue for CJ Roberts, at least in my opinion. He can indeed throw it back to the Congress to âfixâ a particular issue of the law, knowing full well that Congress will do nothing, because thatâs what they do best.
However, this puts millions of people seemingly without healthcare, at all. Whatâs to be done about that? This is what year 2 into the ACA implementation and weâre seeing good results from it. SCOTUS will take that away from Americans who are in fact paying their premiums, and seeing the benefits of healthcare coverage. Maybe Scalia or Alito want to do that, but I donât think CJ Roberts wants to have his judicial legacy tainted with taking it away from Americans who are paying for it and like it.
Unlike the Voting Rights Act, which also threw parts of it back to the Congress to âfixâ, if someone doesnât vote or take full advantage of their citizen responsibilities, they probably will not lose their life over it. Without the ACA, people will die waiting for Congress to act. Not that it matters to the GOP Congress, but it does matter to the judicial legacy that John Roberts is crafting for himself.
3 Likes
But ONLY if that kind of interpretation suits his agenda.
That fat fuck Scalia in the dissent for the mandate case wrote in detail exactly how the subsidies function. But that wonât stop that piece of shit from ignoring his own written statements.
God I wish heâd suffer a catastrophic health event.
4 Likes
If the GOP wasnât the white supremacy party, the VRA decision, in a normal time and place, really isnât that awful, since the districts subject to preclearance are based upon shit that went down 60 years ago. Roberts and Kennedy didnât say that preclearance per se was unconstitutional, they said that applying it based on shit that happened 60 years ago was unconstitutional. And thatâs not a totally meritless argument. Itâs bullshit given the current state of the GOP, but on purely academic terms itâs defensible.
This fucking subsidies case, however, is a goddamn disgrace, and the court has lost whatever shred of legitimacy it retained by even considering it.
3 Likes
Indeed. In fact, there is no âfederal exchange.â Healthcare.gov merely provides administrative support for the various state exchanges. You cannot purchase a federal insurance plan. You have to purchase a state plan.
As an attorney I cannot stress strongly enough what absolute bullshit this case is. It fucking lost on summary judgment (i.e. get the fuck out, you have no case) in the DC circuit before those two nazi fuck appeals judges took it up (which was subsequently vacated, i.e. thrown the fuck out.)
These asshole attorneys, Cannon and Adler, are murderous fucks, and Iâve got a notion to make them famous.
2 Likes
Chief Justice Roberts promised earlier that I could keep my doctor!!1!
1 Like
âa major do-overâ means the Republicans, after branding the AHCA as âObamacareâ for political reasons, will now rebrand it, for political reasons, as the Republican Healthcare Program and theyâll fix the technicality, but probably wonât change anything else.
2 Likes
âRoberts, who has worked to bolster the Supreme Courtâs image as an impartial judicial bodyâ
should have been: âRoberts, who has worked to create the false appearance of bolstering the Supreme Courtâs image as an impartial judicial body.â
Otherwise, I thought this was a good article.
3 Likes
"Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) recently said
a decision against the law would âtake it downâ and allow for âa major
do-over of the whole thing â that opportunity presented to us by the
Supreme Court, as opposed to actually getting the president to sign a
full repeal, which is not likely to happen.â "
Mitch, you could fix the law now ifn ya wanted to. You knowâŚthose things called laws? Nothing is preventing you from writing a better law buddy. Like a single payer system such as is in nearly every other developed country? But Noooo, I doubt you could find your ass with both hands. You donât need a repeal to rewrite a law. And why are you so suddenly opposed to a total take down? Did you just realize how badly we would all be screwed?
6 Likes
Not bad. Youâre at The Ghost of The Ghost of ET level.
2 Likes
Roberts bent over backwards to find an interpretation of the law to allow it to move forward, I donât see him joining an effort that would create chaos now that it has been more fully implemented. It seems a decent lawyer can make an argument that beyond the intent of the law, that the wording that allows for interstate and regional exchanges in section 1311 along with the powers given to the Secretary of HHS to set up exchanges within the state should the state fail to do so itself (in section 1321) could be interpreted that the Federal exchange is the de facto exchange established by the State under section 1311 ( the section under which exchanges must be established to grant subsidies). As far as I can tell there is no specific language calling for a Federal exchange as an alternative to a State exchange, just language authorizing the HHS to act to establish and operate an exchange within the state should the state fail to do so itself.
1 Like
Oh. No maâam. I wholly defer to The Master. 
jw1
1 Like
âBut the Republicans who will run Congress next year may be unintentionally undermining their chances of a victory in King v. Burwell, by arguing that a defeat for the Obama administration would gravely damage the law and signaling they would not fix the language at issue in Obamacare. Such a ruling would invalidate premium tax credits for
Americans in most states, rendering insurance unaffordable for millions and imperiling other provisions in the law.â
Well, do they wanna take the law down or not? As I understand it the GOP hates the law. They want insurance and health care to be unaffordable. Thatâs the only explanation I can see here. As to why they would want it all to be unaffordable âŚwell theyâll hafta explain that one because I cannot.
I swear I do not understand republicans.
4 Likes
Roberts needs to get out more and see the consequences of his decisions.
3 Likes
I second footballbatâs advice to look at the post-subsidy cost, should you be eligible, rather than the full retail price.
And I add that you should shop around each year, and not just on the exchanges, rather than simply renewing.
If you have a doctor you want to stay with, ask the administrative staff what local PPACA plans they are part of. If your primary concern is affordable insurance, see if online sites like insurance.com or ehealthinsurance.com can help you find and evaluate plans sold outside the exchanges.
Important edit:
Given the topic of the TPM article, it was very sloppy of me not to mention that you need to buy on the exchange to get the subsidy, so the off-exchange shopping is for those who donât qualify for a subsidy.
3 Likes