The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Chef Jim]

Don't take every statement completely literally on a message board? Duh! I mean how stupid do you have to be?

 

Words have meaning. Hmmm, where have we heard that before? When you're called out on things you say you come back with the tired. "that's not what I meant!!" like a little child.

 

Bitter much?

[Tiberius]

 

Words have meaning. Hmmm, where have we heard that before? When you're called out on things you say you come back with the tired. "that's not what I meant!!" like a little child.

 

Bitter much?

Ok

[DC Tom]

Don't take every statement completely literally on a message board? Duh! I mean how stupid do you have to be?

 

You're a very wise poster who makes valuable contributions to this board.

 

But don't take that "literally."

[Deranged Rhino]

Don't take every statement completely literally on a message board? Duh! I mean how stupid do you have to be?

 

:lol:

[OCinBuffalo]

Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) informed the exchange last week that federal funds were no longer available to support long-term operations. . . .

Get used to seeing this.

 

It's been 2 years. 2 years was always when the Federal subsidizing of the state exchange(and Medicaid expansion as well, don't forget that) as a whole(meaning not individual subsidy, but "startup cost assistance") was going to run out.

 

As far as the SCOTUS case?

 

This whole thing is Obama and Co. trying to get out of the language they purposely created as a political trap for red state governors. The logic:

IF

you don't create your own exchange and/or expand Medicaid, you won't get Federal subsidy $

(In case you don't know: Normal Medicaid funding == 50% Fed, 25% state, 25% county. Medicaid expansion means expand coverage and change the formula, by using the extra Federal funds. So, it was ~70% Fed, 15% state, 15% county. When the extra Fed funds run out, we revert to the normal formula, and the state and counties will be left holding the bag to make up the difference on the "expanded" people. Or, kick them back out of Medicaid, and go back to normal coverage rules. Don't be surprised to see the latter, as many counties, and some states, face bankruptcy in trying to make up the difference.)

THEN

we will excoriate you politically for denying the people in your state something that other people in other states are getting, and not only will you be defeated in your next election, we will turn your state from red to purple on your watch.

 

Unfortunately for the Ds, they couldn't conceive of any other possible logical outcome. But reality is this:

ELSE

Red state govs will call your bluff, because they aren't the idiots you thought they were, because only your own hubris said you could intimidate them, and, because proper analysis of Obamacare said FAIL. Obamacare will remain unpopular, will fail spectacularly in both design and execution at the Federal level, the young will not be fooled into signing up for a ripoff, and the magical thinking that said somehow adding massive, temporarily subsidized, demand for health care without increasing supply, was going to "lower rates", fails, because it is: magical thinking.

 

The trap above cannot work WITHOUT the specific language that is being contested in the SCOTUS case: "Federal subsidies of individuals are only available to exchanges established by the state".

 

So, please understand, this is NOT a "mistake in the language" or an "oversight". No. This is the remains of a failed political trap, that Obama et al are now trying to get out of, because they could never conceive of the ELSE. EDIT: If anything a new trap for blue state governors and Ds in general has been created: "You either kick people out of Medicaid, or, you have to raise taxes substantially, which will get YOU defeated in the next election"

Edited June 11, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Man]

Editorial Board, New York Times:

 

The Affordable Care Act, which has helped millions of people get health care, is now fully woven into the nation’s social fabric. As President Obama

said

Tuesday, there is something “deeply cynical about the ceaseless, endless, partisan attempts” to roll back the progress already made.

His

remarks at a forum

of the Catholic Health Association come only weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling that could, if the administration loses, eliminate federal tax subsidies in 34 states that have made it possible for millions of Americans to buy health insurance. Mr. Obama was right when

he said on Monday

that the court probably shouldn’t have even taken the case. Unfortunately it did, and no one can predict how the deeply divided court will rule.

 

 

 

 

If Obamacare is "now fully woven into the nation's social fabric," why was the employer mandate for companies with 50-100 workers delayed until 2016?

 

 

 

 

 

“If you live by the pen, you die by the pen. . . . Everything put in place by executive order can be undone by executive order.”

[DC Tom]

Mr. Obama was right when he said on Monday that the court probably shouldn’t have even taken the case.

 

I want to know the logic behind that. The court's being asked to judge on a point of legal semantics, yes...but one of long standing and very serious import well beyond the ACA.

[Dorkington]

Supreme Court upholds key Obamacare insurance subsidies

 

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide availability of tax subsidies that are crucial to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, handing a major victory to the president.

The court ruled on a 6-3 vote that the 2010 Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, did not restrict the subsidies to states that establish their own online healthcare exchanges. It marked the second time in three years that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it.

Chief Justice John Roberts was joined by fellow conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy and the court’s liberal members in the majority.

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote, adding that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."

[Doc]

John Roberts does it again.

And I loved Scalia's line "we should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

[Azalin]

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote, adding that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."

 

If Congress had to 'pass it in order to know what's in it', how can Roberts claim to know what Congress' intent 'plainly' was?

[motorguy]

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote, adding that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid."

 

If Congress had to 'pass it in order to know what's in it', how can Roberts claim to know what Congress' intent 'plainly' was?

Truth of the day right there, amen brother

[IDBillzFan]

This is surprising since the wording of the law was, y'know, pretty clear. In fact, it was crystal clear. The worst part of all of this is when Obamacare is proven to destroy health care in the US, the left will begin explaining to everyone how Obama was a Republican.

[B-Man]

John Roberts does it again.

And I loved Scalia's line "we should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

 

 

John Roberts confirms that he has completely jettisoned all pretense of textualism. He is a results-oriented judge, period, ruling on big cases based on what he thinks the policy result should be or what the political stakes are for the court itself.

 

 

 

 

Judges Serve the Technocracy

I think those who divide the SCOTUS between conservatives and liberals are making a fundamental error in interpretation.

The better understanding, I think, is that the Court is 5½–3½ Technocrat.

The “liberals” will always vote in lockstep to support the liberal political agenda, which includes promoting the technocratic enterprise.

The three “conservatives,” Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, can be more counted on to apply the law as written and Constitution as intended.

Roberts is very pro-technocrat — hence his two Obamacare rulings — and Kennedy is a wobbler technocrat. Hence, most rulings will promote the technocratic agenda regardless of the subject. And that will soon include issues of international governance.

What does that mean for SSM? The technocratic class wants SSM. We will have SSM

 

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420304/judges-serve-technocracy-wesley-j-smith

 

 

[TH3]

Ohhh the wailing....What....Scotus stays in their lane and does not exercise "judicial activism"? .....IF the GOP or anyone else has a better idea write it up, pass it in congress and send it to POTUS....instead you want the SC to do all your heavy lifting?

 

BTW - I hardly think the ACA is a good health care system - The GOP is missing an opportunity - the USA has arguably if not patently - the worst health care structure of all industrialized nations -

[DC Tom]

Ohhh the wailing....What....Scotus stays in their lane and does not exercise "judicial activism"? .....IF the GOP or anyone else has a better idea write it up, pass it in congress and send it to POTUS....instead you want the SC to do all your heavy lifting?

 

BTW - I hardly think the ACA is a good health care system - The GOP is missing an opportunity - the USA has arguably if not patently - the worst health care structure of all industrialized nations -

 

SCOTUS did exercise judicial activism. The majority opinion specifically calls the law ambiguous, then fixes the ambiguity.

 

Of course, they probably just felt left out. Everyone else has modified the law since it was passed, now it was the Supremes' turn.

[B-Man]

 

SCOTUS did exercise judicial activism. The majority opinion specifically calls the law ambiguous, then fixes the ambiguity.

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

That was so obvious, I assumed Basky was joking.

 

 

.

[keepthefaith]

So will lawyers now be able to reference this case as a precedent when arguing the "intent" of an agreement or law? It no longer matters what the words mean because the intent was this or that?

[Magox]

 

 

Thank you.

 

That was so obvious, I assumed Basky was joking.

 

 

.

 

Well, yes and no. I'm on record here for how I feel about the law, so let's keep that in mind, but having said that there are two cases that can be made for judicial activism, and they both have in my view equal merit. Yes, you can make the argument that DC Tom made about what Justice Roberts made and then you can make the argument that the law was intended to provide subsidies, the miscalculation that the administration made was that they believed that the States were going to create the exchanges, but none the less, it was always about a mechanism to provide subsidies.

 

In my view, there would have been more a case of judicial activism by ruling against the subsidies, because basically even though we know the intent was primarily more so about the subsidy itself rather than how you provide the subsidy, you would decide to basically gut the law because of either a technical hiccup or incompetent miscalculation from the writers of the law and administration.

 

I know I'm just repeating myself but it's important to remember the intent was always to provide subsidies.

[4merper4mer]

 

Well, yes and no. I'm on record here for how I feel about the law, so let's keep that in mind, but having said that there are two cases that can be made for judicial activism, and they both have in my view equal merit. Yes, you can make the argument that DC Tom made about what Justice Roberts made and then you can make the argument that the law was intended to provide subsidies, the miscalculation that the administration made was that they believed that the States were going to create the exchanges, but none the less, it was always about a mechanism to provide subsidies.

 

In my view, there would have been more a case of judicial activism by ruling against the subsidies, because basically even though we know the intent was primarily more so about the subsidy itself rather than how you provide the subsidy, you would decide to basically gut the law because of either a technical hiccup or incompetent miscalculation from the writers of the law and administration.

 

I know I'm just repeating myself but it's important to remember the intent was always to provide subsidies.

That was not the intent of the law. The intent of the law was to coerce States into creating exchanges to receive subsidies. When the coercion failed, the intent changed.

[Magox]

That was not the intent of the law. The intent of the law was to coerce States into creating exchanges to receive subsidies. When the coercion failed, the intent changed.

 

That wasn't the intent that I was referring to...Like I said earlier, that was a miscalculation from the writers of the law due to their incompetence, but the real intent was providing subsidies. That's what it was about more so than who provides the subsidies.