Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) - Supreme Court Upholds Subsidies For Federal Exchanges
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People now have access to a health insurance card tied to a huge deductible. Does that necessarily equal health care?
My bronze plan costs 1K per month covers no ilness until 6K in deductibles is paid. This bad policy is now cemented in place due to this ruling.
Thanks for nothing.
People now have access to a health insurance card tied to a huge deductible. Does that necessarily equal health care?
My bronze plan costs 1K per month covers no ilness until 6K in deductibles is paid. This bad policy is now cemented in place due to this ruling.
Thanks for nothing.
To the politically-connected technocrat - yes, it equals "healthcare".
To the individual citizens (serfs) - no so much.
But hey, it's Utopia now - all those rainbows and unicorns flying around........
It does help them but they need to drop the "we need to repeal and replace" chant, just go in and fix it. See if they can work in lower deductibles while keeping payments down. See if you can give more incentives to create state exchanges and cover those who are in gaps with their state run Medicaid programs.
I really thought Obamacare was supposed to make insurance affordable for everyone. I just don't understand this ruling. They must be ruling in favor of corporations to line their pockets.
Have you already read the majority's opinion(s)? Because it's 47 pages long, I was going to wait until I had some free time this afternoon to read the whole thing. Maybe you're a legal eagle?
I can summarize the majority opinion for you.
Despite the strong case the plaintiffs made about the plain language of the law, the majority didn't want to dismantle the subsidies.
It's amusing, but not surprising, that Justice Scalia dissents. Why? Because Scalia goes endlessly on about intent as the all-important factor in the interpretation of the law. Well, the intent of this law was and is clear. It was so clear that for years, Republicans did not dispute the intent, until they eventually stumbled upon the disingenuous excuse put forth in this failed case. The drafting of the law was poorly worded, but Scalia is all about intent.
Except when he doesn't like the intent - and then he finds an excuse to ignore his very own oft-proclaimed method of jurisprudence.
Exactly.
Scalia has lost his mind.
As far as Kennedy goes, I have the utmost respect for him to be able to do what he thinks is right, and not dictated by a party line. Scalia lost the ability to do this long ago.
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ignoring the plain language of the law may mean that SCOTUS doesn't believe that Congress would re-enacted another version of Omamacare that would provide the same entitlements.
Is it only me that feels the ruling class just keeps doing whatever is deemed necessary to maintain its hold over what the people can do with their lives?
I only hope that it doesn't get much worse before it starts getting better or before I have to leave this earth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.