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

[birdog1960]

scalia is becoming irrelevant almost as quickly as the confederate flag.

[Magox]

scalia is becoming irrelevant almost as quickly as the confederate flag.

 

You don't do your side any favors when you post. Just sayin'

[4merper4mer]

 

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.

False.

 

They wanted to show the States who was boss by using money. Their bluff got call and then they claimed they never intended to make the bluff in the first place.

[Magox]

False.

 

They wanted to show the States who was boss by using money. Their bluff got call and then they claimed they never intended to make the bluff in the first place.

 

I'm not going to disagree with part of what you were saying, but more important than that was providing subsidies.

[4merper4mer]

 

I'm not going to disagree with part of what you were saying, but more important than that was providing subsidies.

False.

 

Federal government control of everything is the goal.

 

The subsidies are just the mechanism. If there was another mechanism they would use that too. Subsidies can be taken away as easily as they are given once control is achieved.

Edited June 25, 2015 by 4merper4mer

[Magox]

False.

 

Federal government control of everything is the goal.

 

The subsidies are just the mechanism. If there was another mechanism they would use that too. Subsidies can be taken away as easily as they are given once control is achieved.

 

False.

 

The main goal was to provide subsidies. The mechanism was a secondary issue and a woeful incompetent miscalculation from the government and the writers of the law.

[B-Man]

 

I'm not going to disagree with part of what you were saying, but more important than that was providing subsidies.

 

 

Obamacare Ruling May Have Just Killed State-Based Exchanges

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/upshot/obamacare-ruling-may-have-just-killed-state-based-exchanges.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0

 

 

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that health insurance consumers can receive federal subsidies regardless of their state’s role in running their insurance market, fewer states may stay in the game.

When the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, most people expected that each state would want to run its own health insurance marketplace. That never really happened, as many states opted to let the federal system, HealthCare.gov, do the work for them. Many of those states that did try running their own marketplaces are starting to think twice.

Now, with the Supreme Court ensuring that every state’s consumers will have equal access to federal subsidies, it is becoming clear that more of those states will revert to a federal system for enrolling people in health insurance.

 

 

 

 

 

That was the plan.

[4merper4mer]

 

False.

 

The main goal was to provide subsidies. The mechanism was a secondary issue and a woeful incompetent miscalculation from the government and the writers of the law.

You are incorrect. The goal was to have the federal government dictate terms. They attempted to do this essentially through extortion. When that failed they claimed powers not in the law. The law was written to exert control in a very specific manner. When they manner failed they exerted control anyway. In the end, the decision of the court is that the federal government has control of everything. That is want they wanted and that is what they got. Do you think they really give a crap at all if some dude gets a subsidy?

 

 

Obamacare Ruling May Have Just Killed State-Based Exchanges

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/upshot/obamacare-ruling-may-have-just-killed-state-based-exchanges.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0

 

 

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that health insurance consumers can receive federal subsidies regardless of their state’s role in running their insurance market, fewer states may stay in the game.

 

When the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, most people expected that each state would want to run its own health insurance marketplace. That never really happened, as many states opted to let the federal system, HealthCare.gov, do the work for them. Many of those states that did try running their own marketplaces are starting to think twice.

 

Now, with the Supreme Court ensuring that every state’s consumers will have equal access to federal subsidies, it is becoming clear that more of those states will revert to a federal system for enrolling people in health insurance.

 

 

 

 

 

That was the plan.

It sort of reads like the federal government wanted control of everything.

 

Magox doesn't think so though. He'll explain why when he gets back from the widget factory in fantasy land.

Edited June 25, 2015 by 4merper4mer

[Doc]

It was judicial activism. When you don't follow the law as it was written and base your majority opinion on "what should/should not happen," it's activism.

[Magox]

 

 

Obamacare Ruling May Have Just Killed State-Based Exchanges

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/upshot/obamacare-ruling-may-have-just-killed-state-based-exchanges.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0

 

 

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that health insurance consumers can receive federal subsidies regardless of their state’s role in running their insurance market, fewer states may stay in the game.

 

When the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, most people expected that each state would want to run its own health insurance marketplace. That never really happened, as many states opted to let the federal system, HealthCare.gov, do the work for them. Many of those states that did try running their own marketplaces are starting to think twice.

 

Now, with the Supreme Court ensuring that every state’s consumers will have equal access to federal subsidies, it is becoming clear that more of those states will revert to a federal system for enrolling people in health insurance.

 

 

 

 

 

That was the plan.

 

I'm confused, so which is it? The states were suppose to be bullied into providing the mechanism for subsidies

 

or the plan all along was to put up a show that fooled everyone into thinking it was suppose to be the state providing the subsidies but knowing the states wouldn't cooperate, jeopardizing the law via the supreme court but having just enough confidence to know that the court would uphold the ruling and then anticipating that the states that did adopt the exchanges would abandon their mechanism to provide subsidies just so that they would and set up shop through the federal exchange?

 

Think about that for a second B man. You are a smart guy, if that was the plan all along, then why didn't they simply write the law with the Federal Exchange? That was never the bone of contention, they could have easily have done that.

You are incorrect. The goal was to have the federal government dictate terms. They attempted to do this essentially through extortion. When that failed they claimed powers not in the law. The law was written to exert control in a very specific manner. When they manner failed they exerted control anyway. In the end, the decision of the court is that the federal government has control of everything. That is want they wanted and that is what they got. Do you think they really give a crap at all if some dude gets a subsidy?

It sort of reads like the federal government wanted control of everything.

 

Magox doesn't think so though. He'll explain why when he gets back from the widget factory in fantasy land.

Why, I'm getting your fantasy land explanations right here, no need for me to go there.

[B-Man]

 

Think about that for a second B man. You are a smart guy, if that was the plan all along, then why didn't they simply write the law with the Federal Exchange? That was never the bone of contention, they could have easily have done that.

I respectfully disagree with your contention that they could have easily have done that.

 

I do believe that the long term/ end game was a Federal plan. They knew that it was not favored by a majority

 

The (laughingly named) Affordable Care Act would never have passed, even the Democrat controlled congress had to pass out so many exemptions and handouts to get this 'plan' passed by one vote.

Edited June 25, 2015 by B-Man

[Magox]

I respectfully disagree with your contention that they could have easily have done that.

 

I do believe that the long term/ end game was a Federal plan. They knew that it was not favored by a majority

 

The (laughingly named) Affordable Care Act would never have passed, even the Democrat controlled congress had to pass out so many exemptions and handouts to get this 'plan' passed by one vote.

 

Why do you believe they couldn't have written that into the law? I followed this as closely as anyone here and many of the posters that are on this board, which was before you came here know that I wrote and opined about the law more than anyone. I read this **** up and down it was a complete obsession of mine. Never was the idea of the state based exchanges vs federal exchanges a sticking point that would have prevented Democrats from voting for the law. The issue that prevented a few democrats from voting for the law was the public option more than anything.

 

I'm not here to argue the merits of the law, that is a separate issue. What we are discussing was the intent of the law and this particular court ruling. If you believe what Gruber says, then their idea was to push the states into forming the exchanges at the state level. The argument that you are now trying to make contradicts Gruber and are saying that all along it was to have a Federal exchange. The reality of what happened doesn't jive with that theory.

 

What happened was simple. Like Gruber says, the idea was for the states to set up the exchanges, they thought they were going to provide enough incentives that the states were going to play along. They miscalculated. The majority of states didn't go along with their script. The ruling almost went against them, and could have justifiably been ruled the other direction, and I wouldn't have been surprised. But they upheld it, and now that they upheld the Federal subsidies, it wouldn't surprise me if what the NY times is correct. Why set up the exchange and upkeep it, if the Federal Exchange will do it for them?

[4merper4mer]

 

 

Why, I'm getting your fantasy land explanations right here, no need for me to go there.

I can't really understand your "sentence" but will answer what I think it intended to say.

 

You are in fantasy land if you think the people that designed this law in any way give a crap whatsoever about anyone receiving a subsidy for the sake of them receiving a subsidy. They only care about the subsidy because it allows them to control the system. Honestly I could have figured this out on my own without any help from the Googlebot.

 

The law as written left a scintilla of power with the states....the power to refuse the exchanges/subsidies. You think that couldn't have influenced even a single congress critter if all power had blatantly been taken away? When many states exerted that scintilla of control, even that got pulled out from under them like a rug.

 

It does not take a genius to figure out that this can be used in many different areas now if the feds so desire. Refuse highway funds? The feds will be there Tuesday to build the new road you don't want.

Edited June 25, 2015 by 4merper4mer

[Magox]

I can't really understand your "sentence" but will answer what I think it intended to say.

 

You are in fantasy land if you think the people that designed this law in any way give a crap whatsoever about anyone receiving a subsidy for the sake of them receiving a subsidy. They only care about the subsidy because it allows them to control the system. Honestly I could have figured this out on my own without any help from the Googlebot.

 

The law as written left a scintilla of power with the states....the power to refuse the exchanges/subsidies. You think that couldn't have influenced even a single congress critter if all power had blatantly been taken away? When many states exerted that scintilla of control, even that got pulled out from under them like a rug.

 

It does not take a genius to figure out that this can be used in many different areas now if the feds so desire. Refuse highway funds? The feds will be there Tuesday to build the new road you don't want.

 

I suppose the crux of it all is that you believe that the Obama administration is some malevolent force that wants to control your life and that providing healthcare really wasn't the issue, it was just about control.

 

Whereas my position is that I do believe they had good intentions in providing healthcare for some through the exchanges, and that as a result of their intentions, they do end up controlling the lives of many because they believe big government knows best.

 

That's the difference, but I certainly do find your posts amusing, Please tell me more.

[4merper4mer]

 

I suppose the crux of it all is that you believe that the Obama administration is some malevolent force that wants to control your life and that providing healthcare really wasn't the issue, it was just about control.

 

Whereas my position is that I do believe they had good intentions in providing healthcare for some through the exchanges, and that as a result of their intentions, they do end up controlling the lives of many because they believe big government knows best.

 

That's the difference, but I certainly do find your posts amusing, Please tell me more.

 

 

LOL at the highlight parts.

 

The malevolence is hardly limited to the Obama administration.

If you believe there were good intentions make sure to pick up some licorice sticks on your next trip to the good ship Lollipop. They're dreamy.

 

The recent trade agreement is another example of something that we have to enact so we can see what is in it. Should the court just go ahead and rule now that POTUS can do whatever the heck he wants because that was clearly the intent?

Edited June 25, 2015 by 4merper4mer

[Magox]

 

 

LOL at the highlight parts.

 

The malevolence is hardly limited to the Obama administration.

If you believe there were good intentions make sure to pick up some licorice sticks on your next trip to the good ship Lollipop. They're dreamy.

 

The recent trade agreement is another example of something that we have to enact so we can see what is in it. Should the court just go ahead and rule now that POTUS can do whatever the heck he wants because that was clearly the intent?

 

 

I suppose the crux of it all is that you believe that the Obama administration is some malevolent force that wants to control your life and that providing healthcare really wasn't the issue, it was just about control.

Whereas my position is that I do believe they had good intentions in providing healthcare for some through the exchanges, and that as a result of their intentions, they do end up controlling the lives of many because they believe big government knows best.

That's the difference, but I certainly do find your posts amusing, Please tell me more.

 

[4merper4mer]

 

 

Not the green licorice sticks. They make you do things like post blanks.

[Magox]

Not the green licorice sticks. They make you do things like post blanks.

Please tell me more.

[birdog1960]

i really like licorice. i'm liking the current supreme court more and more.

[3rdnlng]

i really like licorice. i'm liking the current supreme court more and more.

Just wait until they outlaw drive-"byes".