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.
Those in favor of ending ACA subsidies ("unconstitutional"), let's hear your reasons for making health care less affordable for people who need it.
It helps if you understand the issues BEFORE you post. This lawsuit is not about ending ACA subsidies. It is about the law being applied as written. HHS can not make up new rules that go directly counter to the plain language of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Subsidies given by the Federal government don't come out of anyone's pay check. It subsidizes corporations all the time, where are your complaints?
Where, pray tell, does the federal government get income?
What subsidies (cash payments) to corporations are you referring?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Before ACA only 12% of plans offered maternity care.
Did you understand the article?
No, before ACA it is not true that "only 12% of plans offered maternity care". The quote was that only 12% of plans in the individual market offered maternity coverage. So if you wanted maternity coverage you took one of those plans, but since 80% of workers in the country are covered by employer plans
and within those plans is maternity coverage, the initial assertion is demonstrably wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam
The Supreme Court needs to judge this case, and every case, on its own merits based on the law.
If the ACA subsidies for Federal Exchanges aren't in the text of the ACA, and its a good idea that they should be, its up to the legislature to put them in there.
Not the courts.
If the court does not vote 9-0 for the plain language of the law then any law passed by Congress has zero meaning and this administration and future administration are free to do whatever they choose.
If the court does not vote 9-0 for the plain language of the law then any law passed by Congress has zero meaning and this administration and future administration are free to do whatever they choose.
The Chevron deference, established by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), is a principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable.
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Subsidies given by the Federal government don't come out of anyone's pay check. It subsidizes corporations all the time, where are your complaints?
wow? Gruber certainty knew what he was talking about. hmm, maybe I do believe democrats when they say people are too dumb to get a voter ID.
6 pages, and nobody addressed the key issue: Does the PPACA mean what it says, or should the perceived "intent" of the writers be the driving force? THAT is what the SC is trying to figure out.
Given that nearly ALL the writers of the legislation were LAWYERS I find it difficult to believe they did not write it in exactly the way they meant it to be written!
Seems to me if the Judges determine that the law does NOT mean what is written, they are effectively saying that all the lawyers in Congress wasted their higher education money, and they are dumber than a box of rocks in that they obviously can't be trusted to say what they mean and mean what they say!
No, I did not waste time reading every post. too many of them are repetitious to bother with that.
The ruling, I assume is going to be based on legalities. Does the ACA specifically allow the Fed to also offer subsidies. I think the ACA was set-up to allow only state-exchanges to offer subsidies.....as a means to encourage states to set-up exchanges.
But, I think SCOTUS is going to see past the legalities and not rock the ACA-boat.
I don't think the ACA does much if anything, for MOST people, to make health-insurance and medical care cheaper.
Well, the 4 words only means what it says until they want to change the meaning of the 4 words to fit what they want.
You know...I was thinking about this when I drove into work today. And...I agree. You can try and justify something based upon intent, you can modify things and twist things, but only to a point.....but you can't deny black and white reality.
I think the supreme court should rule that only states who have established a exchange in their state should get subsidies. If the court disagrees I will be interested in reading the ruling.
The resulting poop storm on all fronts will be interesting. It will almost certainly guarantee Democrats the white house, senate, and house majoritys in 2016.
[quote=Mouser;38682927]You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity . . . . What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving . . . . The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else . . . .. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation . . . .You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
- Adrian Rogers, 1931[/QUOTE]
Who?? And why is he relevant that we should care what he has to say?
Those in favor of ending ACA subsidies ("unconstitutional"), let's hear your reasons for making health care less affordable for people who need it.
1.
2.
3.
1. Because they need it and we are not heartless bastards
2. Because they need it and we are not heartless bastards
3. Because they need it and we are not heartless bastards
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity . . . . What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving . . . . The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else . . . .. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation . . . .You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
- Adrian Rogers, 1931
prosperity?? It's healthcare we're talking about here, not mansions and private jets
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.
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.
