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.
Aside from the obvious conclusions in the ruling, this also illustrates how incompetent and/or careless Democrats were in drafting ACA legislation. Explicitly outlining subsidies for state exchanges while omitting language for subsidies for the federal exchange was a colossal oversight on Democrats' part. So egregious that the entire Affordable Care Act is at risk of being completely dismantled if upheld in the Supreme Court. In an ironic twist of fate, Democrats would be 100% responsible for the dismantling of their own cherished law simply because they didn't perform their proper due diligence.
Aside from the obvious conclusions in the ruling, this also illustrates how incompetent and/or careless Democrats were in drafting ACA legislation. Explicitly outlining subsidies for state exchanges while omitting language for subsidies for the federal exchange was a colossal oversight on Democrats' part. So egregious that the entire Affordable Care Act is at risk of being completely dismantled if upheld in the Supreme Court. In an ironic twist of fate, Democrats would be 100% responsible for the dismantling of their own cherished law simply because they didn't perform their proper due diligence.
Congress passed a gray, blank slated bill.
They let the agencies define the rules.
Maybe that was done on purpose during the meeting with Obama, Reid and Pelosi.
So HHS, IRS and the Treasury made up the rules of the law.
Maybe they thought everyone would just fall in line and obey.
One walks a fine line when they force something on their citizens and penalize them if they don't go along.
Glad to see people bucking this and going to court and glad to see the court actually doing it's job to ensure our liberties and freedoms don't get trampled on.
If Congress just expanded medicaid/medicare to take in those that wanted insurance but couldn't afford it they would have had no resistance.
Take these programs and just add a new subscriber base with monthly premiums.
This has to go back to SCOTUS. As much as I don't like the ACA as a whole, this ruling just hurts poor people in those states. They should have read the bill before passing it.
What then? Then, the Republicans will be in a horrible place. It is one thing to rail against Obamacare and hold symbolic votes which have no chance of success, and quite another to actually vote to take away insurance from millions and millions of working class people by refusing to fix the law that puts insurance within their financial reach. If sensible legislators prevail, this may present an opportunity to fix both this and many of the other unintended consequences of the ACA. That's a long shot, I know, but the Republicans will have to at least address the issue before the court like it or not.
This has to go back to SCOTUS. As much as I don't like the ACA as a whole, this ruling just hurts poor people in those states. They should have read the bill before passing it.
This was a proof reading error in the original law. Someone at some level should have caught it. The two judges are trying to undo the law based on a technicality. This actually puts the Republican states in a predicament like Arizona where they supported Medicaid expansion. Now the Republicans will be in the position of telling people on the exchanges "sorry you dont get any help."
What then? Then, the Republicans will be in a horrible place. It is one thing to rail against Obamacare and hold symbolic votes which have no chance of success, and quite another to actually vote to take away insurance from millions and millions of working class people by refusing to fix the law that puts insurance within their financial reach. If sensible legislators prevail, this may present an opportunity to fix both this and many of the other unintended consequences of the ACA. That's a long shot, I know, but the Republicans will have to at least address the issue before the court like it or not.
Why? I'm not aware of anything that compels Congress to address an issue legislatively before the Court has an opportunity to review and rule.
Or, do you mean "address it before the Court"....as in present their case to the Court?
Either way, I don't follow your logic.
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.
