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.
This is about the Constitutionality of this mess. The Federal government actually does not have the authority to get involved in health care to get down to what our Constitutional dictates that over which the Federal Government has any authority. Health care is a States Right...not Federal Government.
I hope and pray the Supreme Court Justices do what is right. This law should never have been passed in the first place and would not have been had the Dems (led by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi) not pulled all kinds of shenanigans including "pay offs" for votes of Congressmen and the Senators. Very bad and disgusting. It passed by 1 vote which was cast by a Dem who flipped to a RHINO Republican who flipped back his party to Dem and then sold his vote for an appointment to a Committee. Wow!
We'll both watch with interest as this political theater plays out.
Three weeks before an expected Supreme Court ruling that could strike down Obamacare subsidies for 6.4 million Americans, President Barack Obama and Republican foes began to blame each other for the possible damage.
If the Suprme Court rules to take away subsidies on this flimsy case, we are a banana republic.
Whether one likes the affordable care act or not, the whole premise of this case makes zero sense and has zero basis in objective reality.
The argument is that Democrats and the President meant to punish states that didn't create their own marketplace, but they never discussed this anywhere or with anyone is asinine and dishonest.
They didn't discuss this poison pill in the law with the media, or other democrats, or conservatives.
I mean come on, but again we are dealing with a majority conservative court, and reality is irrelevant to conservatives.
But that is where you fail......the MINUS sign is people still uninsured...
You can't claim that people are uninsured because of some failure of the ACA, it's more a failure of the states who did not opt into expanded medicaid, and that of individuals who don't bother to sign up for healthcare even when it may be available at little to no cost.
"The uninsured population includes people who will be unauthorized immigrants and thus ineligible either for exchange subsidies or for most Medicaid benefits; people who will be ineligible for Medicaid because they live in a state that has chosen not to expand coverage; people who will be eligible for Medicaid but will choose not to enroll; and people who will not purchase insurance to which they have access through an employer, through an exchange, or directly from an insurer"
I think the real reason is that all the dems who voted for it, just cannot read (like all the GRUBERS, such as people like you). If they could read, they would have seen how screwed the dem written bill is.....
Why didn't they vote to defund Medicare Part B that was approved by a republican President and congress, if they don't like the ACA why not take away funding for both. Why stop there, go for Medicaid and Medicare.
Uhmmm....no this has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it! Where did you get that idea?
Thats been decided already. Its constitutional.
The case may well turn on a constitutional issue though. Recall that the court struck down the ACA mandate for states to be in Medicaid because the feds can't use penalties as inducements like the act did. The same thing may apply with respect to the subsidies. If the law actually required citizens of states to be treated differently depending on whether an exchange was deployed as demanded by the feds that would be very similar and likely unconstitutional. It is just the kind of convoluted reasoning Roberts likes: if we decide for plaintiffs we will be forcing an unconstitutional decision on the states. So Roberts and maybe Kennedy vote with the liberals but for different reasons.
Look, if you're publicly incapable of understanding clearly formatted data that you yourself googled up and posted... then I'd suggest that you stop embarrassing yourself. You're just digging that hole deeper.
Here, once again I've highlighted the pertinent information for you. Notice that this section of the table shows CHANGE in insurance coverage. Change. The numbers for 'uninsured' are negative, clearly indicating that the number of uninsured is dropping. This is not difficult. It's not even controversial for the functionally literate. Look closely and TRY to be honest with yourself about what you're seeing:
Good Gawd. What a perfect spokesman for opposition to the ACA.
Sorry, I have the ability to read and comprehend, did you notice the "c" at the end of the first word of your second red block, that means there is a note at the bottom?
Of course not, did you read the note? Of COURSE not...
C. THE UNINSURED POPULATION......
Above is the first 3 words of "C".......The NOTE...............
GOOD GAWD......you are a true GRUBER...
SO now, please tell us what NOTE C means...GRUBER..
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.
