Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Jedi Knight, Oct 9, 2013.
But the liberals have told us that everything was done totally legally?
Doubtful, the Supreme Court has spoken. Though the lawsuit approaches the law through another avenue, I'd say that the legal system can see it for what it is.
I personally dislike him a great deal, but have to admit he's certainly smart and capable of getting things accomplished when he thinks they need to be done.
Let's not get our hopes to high, remember Dick said Obama was going to get trounced in the 2012 election.
This is simply not true. It spoke only on one single issue. As far as seeing it for what it is, the court cannot make that determination. It can only weigh the evidence and argument.
As I read this story it is saying that only those customers of health insurance exchanges run by the states will get subsidies. If your state opted not to create an exchange the federal government is obligated to set up and run an exchange for that state(s).
That presents a quandary for a lot of conservatives on BB.
If you believe that people are lazy, looking for handouts, and will vote for Democrats to get freebies (as was posted here ad nauseam after Romney lost) then in order to be consistent you would have to predict that if the SCOTUS rules that only citizens of state run exchanges will get subsidies then those citizens will elect a legislature that will give them free stuff, eg. a state run exchange that will dole out health insurance subsidies. And ObamaCare will roll on.
ITL, if a state has opted out of expanding Medicaid, then people in that state who qualify will get subsidies, but they come from the federal government. They get the subsidies instead of being on Medicaid. Changing the Act to allow states to be allowed to opt out and then having the subsidies be paid by federal instead of through states is allegedly what is driving up the costs of premiums on regular insurance, according to a few news stories I read.
I'm not saying I believe that it is what is driving up the cost, but that's what I read.
This might be where it talks about subsidies. http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php I can't find the bookmark where I highlighted the PDF of the giant file that has all the info. If I find it I'll let you know the markings in the document, if you have downloaded it and care. LOL It's a lot of reading but it's interesting to see all the stuff they have tucked in there!
Aww so you think you have outsmarted the lawyers that have brought the suit. How cute.
No, for my scenario to play out I have to trust the smart lawyers to win their case.
I think that conservatives on BB that are getting their hopes up because of this lawsuit had better be consistent in their beliefs about the penchant for voters to want freebies. If a voter in Kansas buys insurance on the federal exchange and gets no subsidy and hears that a voter in Minnesota gets a subsidy from the state run exchange, according to some conservatives on BB that Kansas voter is going to demand FREE STUFF!
I was wondering if I read that right when I read the news story and if that's what it would mean if it went through.
No matter how conservative someone is, it's hard to see someone sit next to you eating cake and not want some too. Interesting. Verrrry interesting.
Apparently, the legal syste doesn't agree with your dismissal. The judge who reviewed the filing ruled the case has merit, and may proceed.
I don't think you grasp what the lawsuit says. There is no basis for even setting up federal exchanges, much less offering subsidized health care policies through them. Therefore, all actions taken -- the federal exchanges, the websites, the subsidies -- are illegal under the ACA itself.
He came through the building where I used to work once. There was a tv studio in that building and he was doing an interview for Romney. He needed another necktie for the interview so he bought a red one in a shop in the building. I spoke with him and asked him where he was born and he said New York City. I am about 5' 9" and he is shorter than I am. He is nice personally.
You really don't understand, to you? You completely missed the point. Let me explain it to you s-l-o-w-l-y then:
The wording of ACA states that health care insurance subsidies are available through state run exchanges.
The IRS has ruled by caveat that the law "intended" for those subsidies to be provided through all exchanges.
The ACA clearly expected all 50 states and the various territories to freely organize exchanges.
As a result, the ACA explicitly provides only for the establishment of state exchanges.
Federal exchanges were "mandated" by the Great Pretender, not by anything that can remotely be interpreted from the ACA itself.
The IRS deliberately misinterpreted the law to claim it's language allowed for federal exchanges.
The HHS used the "mandate" from the White House, and the misrepresentation of the law by the IRS, to establish federal exchanges serving the 26 states that refused to establish exchanges.
Considering these facts, it is a given that ...
... the Great Pretender has illegally rewritten a duly approved piece of legislation from the U.S. Congress ...
... and by that rewrite, he has demanded the creation of federal exchanges that are illegal ...
... and as the law provides only for subsidies through state-established and managed exchanges, all subsidies awarded through federal exchanges are illegal ...
... and as the illegal subsidies approved for the illegally created federal exchanges constitute a gross misappropriation of federal funds ...
... resulting in the intent, purpose and extent of the law being violated, abrogated, and improperly -- most likely, even illegally -- interpreted ...
... the Great Pretender, the IRS, the HHS and those responsible for the creation of the ACA's administration have all violated the law, and in fact the G/P has committed numerous felonies in directing these gross violations of his own healthcare act ...
... impeachment proceedings may begin, as evidence presented in Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's federal lawsuit can be used to write the necessary articles of impeachment. As a ruling is expected by the end of the year, expect articles of impeachment to be filed before the House next year.
I'm sure you'll claim all sorts of reasons I am wrong, but I am not. Your alleged "president" has finally tripped himself up in his own mess.
Maybe he didn't see the IRS holding back the tea party wrongfully thus holding back potential results.