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.
A single guy (or gal) age 30 making 10K a year with no kids.
Even in "opt in" states for medicaid expansion.
That single guy still gets no health insurance.
Correct or incorrect?
I believe that single guy or gal still doesn't qualify for medicaid (under the regular system and doesn't qualify for medicaid under the medicaid expansion system).
So what's Obama and the Dems response to those people?
None, they only took people off of medicaid, part time employer insurance, and personal insurance.
Then re-insured them under Obamacare and offered them more free crap at a lower rate.
They then claimed that they insured all these new people when they in fact did not. Most had insurance already, but their insurance was canceled because, even though it was good enough them, it was deemed not good enough by Obama.
Then while offering the previously insured and women lower rates for more free stuff that was to be paid for by raising the rates on everyone else's insurance premiums, they priced out (made heathcare unaffordable) by raising the rates on everyone else.
The millions that previously had no insurance, still have no insurance. Even though some signed up for Obamacare, they never paid their premiums.
Thousand of previously insured AND uninsured part time workers lost their job and/or hours as well as the insurance that their employer used to offer before Obamacare.
Last, the Liberals and Democrats among us wants us and everyone else to be that, after their partisan policies and laws priced people out of healthcare, forced employers to cut hours and jobs so they could to stay in business, and still left millions uninsured, it's the Conservatives that hate the poor by not supporting a law that hurts the poor, the middle class, and the employers that employ them..
Obviously there is something to clarify, since even yesterday two courts came to opposite conclusions.
Is it news to you that judges can be partisan activists?
And can you name a liberal-appointed judge that ruled AGAINST Obamacare? I can give you an example of a Republican-appointed judge who ruled FOR Obamacare.
Is it news to you that judges can be partisan activists?
And that is somehow supposed to explain how there is nothing to clarify? I'll leave it to them to clarify, or not clarify. I won't lose any sleep over it either way.
A single guy (or gal) age 30 making 10K a year with no kids.
Even in "opt in" states for medicaid expansion.
That single guy still gets no health insurance.
Correct or incorrect?
I believe that single guy or gal still doesn't qualify for medicaid (under the regular system and doesn't qualify for medicaid under the medicaid expansion system).
So what's Obama and the Dems response to those people?
In the states that opted in for Medicaid expansion it was single people who were mostly brought in to expanded Medicaid.
And that is somehow supposed to explain how there is nothing to clarify? I'll leave it to them to clarify, or not clarify. I won't lose any sleep over it either way.
I won't lose sleep over it either. otoh, millions of subsidized people may be losing sleep over whether or not they'll have insurance. Including many in your state.
And that is somehow supposed to explain how there is nothing to clarify? I'll leave it to them to clarify, or not clarify. I won't lose any sleep over it either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Obviously there is something to clarify, since even yesterday two courts came to opposite conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Why would it become a matter of a vote in Congress? The court will clarify the wording.
Massive legal fail:
In interpreting a statute, "we begin, as we must, with the express language of the statute . . . . Where, as here, the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, resort to legislative history is unnecessary." Rucker v. Davis, 203 F.3d 627, 636 (9th Cir. 2000); see Citizens Action League v. Kizer, 887 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1989)("In construing a statute, we look first to its plain meaning"). In rare cases where "the literal application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the intention of its drafters," an exception should be made to the general plain language rule. United States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 242, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290, 109 S. Ct. 1026 (1989). However, the Supreme Court has cautioned against inserting words into a statute when the same words are present in other sections of the same statute. The Supreme Court has stated:
[Where] Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion." United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (5th Cir. 1972); See United States v. Wooten, 688 F.2d 941, 950 (4th Cir. 1982). Had Congress intended to restrict § 1963(a)(1) . . . it presumably would have done so expressly as it did in the immediately following subsection (a)(2). See North Haven Board of Education v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 521, 72 L. Ed. 2d 299, 102 S. Ct. 1912 (1982); United States v. Naftalin, 441 U.S. 768, 773-774, 60 L. Ed. 2d 624, 99 S. Ct. 2077 (1979). In the latter case, id., at 773, the Court said: "The short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way." We refrain from concluding here that the differing language in the two subsections has the same meaning in each. We would not presume to ascribe this difference to a simple mistake in draftsmanship.
"In a statutory construction case, the beginning point must be the language of the statute, and when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute's meaning in all but the most extraordinary circumstance is finished." Riva v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 61 F.3d 1003, 1007 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U.S. 469, 475, 120 L. Ed. 2d 379, 112 S. Ct. 2589 (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the court need not consult legislative history and other aids to statutory construction when the words of the statute neither create an ambiguity nor lead to an unreasonable interpretation. Riva, 61 F.3d at 1007 (quotations omitted). In searching a statute's text to determine congressional intent, we attribute to words that are not defined in the statute itself their ordinary usage, while keeping in mind that meaning can only be ascribed to statutory language if that language is taken in context. Id. (quotations omitted).
In interpreting statutes, the Supreme Court has often recognized the rule "that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of its makers." E.g., United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193, 201, 61 L. Ed. 2d 480, 99 S. Ct. 2721 (1979) (quoting Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 459, 36 L. Ed. 226, 12 S. Ct. 511 (1892)).
In recognizing the principle that a statute's language and purpose may at time differ, the Court has stated guidelines for reconciling the two:
There is, of course, no more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes. Often these words are sufficient in and of themselves to determine the purpose of the legislation. In such cases we have followed their plain meaning. When that meaning has led to absurd or futile results, however, this Court has looked beyond the words to the purpose of the act. Frequently, however, even when the plain meaning did not produce absurd results but merely an unreasonable one "plainly at variance with the policy of legislation as a whole" this Court has followed that purpose, rather than the literal words. When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no "rule of law" which forbids its use, however clear the words may appear on "superficial examination."
United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543-44, 84 L. Ed. 1345, 60 S. Ct. 1059 (1940) (footnotes omitted), quoted in Church of Scientology v. United States Department of Justice, 612 F.2d 417, 422 (9th Cir. 1979); accord Burroughs v. Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3, 686 F.2d 723, 727 (9th Cir. 1982).
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
Ahh yes, getting ones hopes up. "Please continue ...".. Anyway, Doubt that the Right's fervent desire to keep access to HC from millions of those unworthy types, will come true.
All Americans have access to healthcare, in spite of your repeated lies.
Not every American has access to health plan coverage.
If an American does not have access to health plan coverage, it is due to laws enacted by the federal government which bar them and/or by States governments, and by the American Hospital Association which repeatedly lobbied for legislation to keep Americans without health plan coverage...unless it was through the American Hospital Association.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stizzel
I believe that both the left and right would agree that we need a way to reduce costs. The issue arises on how we do it, which should be debated in it's own thread
That's been explained 1 Million times, except you don't give a damn about costs so long as your getting free health plan coverage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stizzel
Oh no, how horrible, trying to help residents get insurance.
Why don't you repeal the "enabling laws?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
I see no delusion, only premature celebrating from the antis, as usual.
That would be you...you're the one opposing Freedom of Choice.
I won't lose sleep over it either. otoh, millions of subsidized people may be losing sleep over whether or not they'll have insurance. Including many in your state.
Yes, I am sure they are. It makes me sad when I look at this country and how politicians make every effort to sabotage each other as opposed to working to improve the nation. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it, so I just mind my own business.
The failure is entirely on your part. The courts interpret the law and rule accordingly. It's just the way it works.
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.
