Discussion for article #224600
Yes, let’s destroy the only legislation in 80 years, since the passagle of Social Security, or in 50 years, since the passage of Medicare, that legislation that enables Americans to take care of less healthy, less fortunate Americans, and dooms millions to an early death due to health costs. Let’s destroy Obamacare, because, freedom and profits are more important to the tea baggers.
How the dream that was once America, the nation that became the richest, most powerful, most endowed nation in the history of the planet, how that nation destroys itself with a million cuts, a few million more sick people, a few dozen million more contributing human beings lost to illness and death, all because we must protect the rights of the rich to remain so obscenely rich, the riteous selfish Christians to keep their anti-scientific, unhealthful faith protected. These selfish barbarians among us have the rights in the Supreme Court, and in other courts, to destroy our national wealth, to literally eat our people alive, all in the name of some sort of tax break or tax exemption by declaring tax-supported subsidies unconstitutional.
65 Likes
I heard that this was a bit of a joke as a lawsuit, because the intent of Congress was perfectly clear. So what will it be?
3 Likes
It should be obvious to everyone that republicans are dead set (pun intended) against any sort of affordable medical care or health insurance for Americans.
29 Likes
Depends on how letter of the law vs spirit of the law the court wants to be.
3 Likes
Thing is, stripping those away at this point would probably outright shatter the health insurance market. Suddenly people would not be able to afford the insurance they bought. I do not see why you even bring this challenge at all. It is one of the more vindictive moves out there. Especially after the law is already in place for so many people.
How would the GOP explain this one. They complained when people “lost” their insurance the last time, but are willing to remove more than 8 million people from their plans. This just seems dumb on so many levels.
I wager the three panel will side with the anti-government side, the full panel will side with the government and who knows with the SCOTUS. They are a crap shoot. It really would depend on where Robert’s lands. This may be his chance to use a technicality to get his conservative cred back.
23 Likes
Republicans, at least the few sane ones left, should be praying that this lawsuit fails. Let’s see them win an election for fucking dog-catcher anywhere after they explain to these millions of families that they are going to take away their access to doctors.
Republicans…please proceed.
10 Likes
The only way to keep activist judges off the bench is to vote Democratic. Never allow any Republican to again be in any position to appoint judges.
VOTE, people. In Every. Single. Election.
45 Likes
The good news is that this is NOT as Constitutional question and can be remedied with legislation. One more out of a billion reasons to GET OUT THE VOTE this November…
23 Likes
I’m sure that everyone notices that it comes down to the Republicans to destroy Obamacare. It isn’t about the law or intent of anything, it’s the hate filled, corporate owned lackeys fighting against good because they just want to not let good happen by anyone else and especially by them.
The problem with America is the Republican Party and all that goes with it, that is crystal clear.
23 Likes
You could tell who wrote this before clicking on it.
5 Likes
If the court wants to decide against Obamacare on the basis of one line of the bill’s specific language, it seems to me that the answer in some cases could be a simple text change in the agreements the Federal government has with the state governments that use the Federal exchange.
Language like: “Agreement with the State of Sillyvania to establish a Sillyvania state ACA exchange through the Healthcare.gov…”
That seems workable in the states where the government supports ACA, but can’t or won’t set up an exchange of their own.
In the other states, we might have to rely on citizens and the healthcare providers and insurers to convince their governors and legislatures that getting people insured is better than screwing Obamacare. So many of the law’s other provisions would remain in place, creating a really unworkable situation in state’s that don’t set up an exchange that would allow subsidies.
1 Like
I’m glad that this issue is finally getting some ink. I think Turley is wrong that the statutory language is clearly on the challenger’s side, but there is certainly enough of an argument for them that we shouldn’t be surprised if the court comes out their way. However, there have also been strong statutory analyses that go the Administration’s way; I hope that the author does a Google search and writes about them, as well. Nevertheless, the Administration needs both a Plan B and a Plan P, and needs them fast. One such Plan B would be to allow individuals in a non-Exchange state to enroll in Obamacare through the Exchange of a participating state. As I recall the statutory language - and it has been a while since I’ve read it - the statute would not prohibit this, although the participating state would need to set up additional state-specific accounts. Although this sounds complex, it would really be easier to achieve than you would think, because all the computer work has already been done as part of the Federal Exchange. All you would need is a separate portal for the sign-up process, plus (ideally) a variety of states to act as hosts. Plan P, of course, is a political plan, which the Ds need to immediately implement to get out their vote in states where the R establishment has refused to set up an exchange-- from Pennsylvania to Florida to Virginia to South Carolina. The D candidates should call out their opponents on this.The best political motivator is scaring the shit out of your voters-- For some reason, Ds are reticent to do this. Now’s the time to learn that the Marquis of Queensberry’s rules don’t get your agenda done.
10 Likes
And the House would pass said legislation . . . . hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
2 Likes
The US itself is a State—a nation state.
So the lawsuit really is flimsy and carries a strong whiff of both desperation and disingenuousness.
8 Likes
Question: Could the administration through an executive order expand the guidelines for Medicaid participation? Instead of paying your premium to the insurance company you pay the government instead? I know it’s a long shot, but it would seem the administration would have some maneuvers to go around Congress.
1 Like
How would they explain it? They wouldn’t even try. What do they care? Their goal is to DESTROY EVERYTHING! They are basically domestic terrorists.
8 Likes
Clear to those who have eyes to see, perhaps, but you must remember how many Republicans are willfully blind.
2 Likes
But Gore and Bush were exactly the same said the idiots.
15 Likes
How many?
It’s safe to say about 98%.
2 Likes