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.
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.
Take away the mandates and allow people to purchase the insurance they can afford. If your policy is not good enough, then time to make different financial choices if your life is worth saving.
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."
It wasn't caught because it was designed this way. Those who wrote it never expected that few states would go along with the exchanges.
True, but the subsidy omission is still a gaping hole that should have been covered through some sort of language that covers ambiguities. Most legislation has a semantical escape hatch. The omission here is the semantical escape hatch. Someone dropped the ball on that.
Well, now we know why Max Baucus retired instead of facing re-election!
But, he done good, obama gave him an ambassadorship. He didn't have to go back to the ranch and do real work.
True, but the subsidy omission is still a gaping hole that should have been covered through some sort of language that covers ambiguities.
As I said, it was done this way intentionally. Why would any state bother with an exchange if people could just do this through the federal government?
No, those who wrote this was trying to push many of the costs off on the states.
Quote:
Most legislation has a semantical escape hatch. The omission here is the semantical escape hatch. Someone dropped the ball on that.
It wasn't caught because it was designed this way. Those who wrote it never expected that few states would go along with the exchanges.
This is exactly correct - it just never occurred to Team Obama and the Leftists that the States and their Lawyers would understand that the initial money thrown at them to implement ObamaCare had an expiration date. This is probably because none of these people understand about Budgets and the planning that States (and Businesses) must go through to plan for the future.
"Free Money" is never "Free". Consequences can sometimes be delayed, but they can't be avoided forever. "Forever" came a lot sooner than anticipated.
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."
A proof reading error is missing the "e" before the "h" in the word "the". It's not promising repeatedly over the course of a couple of years, that there would be subsidies. THAT my little friend, was an outright lie - told in a desperate (and only partially successful) attempt to rally the unwashed masses and to hide the truth before the election. The law is being gutted before your eyes and before my eyes and before everyone elses eyes. And the Libs are whining because they don't like legal rulings. Wanna bet that the NSA is checking right now, to see what kind of dirt they have on the SC dudes and dudettes, that might come in handy sometime soon?
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-22-2014 at 10:08 AM..
Reason: personal attack
Washington (CNN) -- "The battle over Obamacare took a dramatic turn Tuesday with a federal appeals court rejecting subsidies paid by the government to millions of new enrollees.
In a 2-1 ruling, a three-judge panel found the federal money that helped people afford health insurance only could go to those who signed up through exchanges run by states.
Only 16 states and the District of Columbia set up their own exchanges, meaning that most of the millions who signed up for subsidized health coverage overall under Obamacare could be affected."
Appeals court strikes down key part of Obamacare program
By Bill Mears and Tom Cohen, CNN
updated 11:24 AM EDT,
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.
Court strikes down key part of Obamacare program
