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 numbers have a MINUS sign next to them and they are in the row entitled "Uninsured". That means it's the CHANGE in the number of uninsured. A MINUS sign means that's the AMOUNT that number DROPPED BY.
IF that row had been the number of INSURED, you would have a point, but it's the number of UNINSURED - and it clearly shows the number of uninsured drops by 13 million to begin with and ends up dropping by 25 million!!!!!!!
Geeze!
My first thought when I heard about this on Public Radio this morning was:
How can ANY panel of Judges (lawyers all) seriously think that a House and Senate, made up of a high percentage of LAWYERS, would write a bill that did not say what it meant, and meant what it says? Would not that be tantamount to saying that the LAWYERS in the Legislature are too dumb to write well?
Congress has the power to change the law so that it covers the INTENT that some seem to think should have been written into it. Let CONGRESS make the necessary changes. In the meantime, let the law be enforced just exactly as it is written! If blame is to be levied, let it be levied on those (lawyers) who WROTE (and passed) the damfool bill in the first place. Whatever happens, it is THEIR fault!
Oh, yeah, and let's don't forget the guy (lawyer) who signed the bill into law! Seems to me HE has to carry some of the blame as well!
"Justice Kennedy expressed deep concern with a system where the statute would potentially destroy the insurance system in states that chose not to establish their own exchanges – likening this to an unconstitutional form of federal coercion. That made him seem skeptical of the petitioners’ reading of the statute, a hopeful point for defenders of the existing subsidies in all states."
"The issue of federal coercion is an important one, particularly given that a similar principle applied three years ago when the court ruled that Congress could not compel the states to expand Medicaid eligibility under the act. It could lead to the conclusion that the Internal Revenue Service's interpretation of that phrase to allow subsidies in states that use the federal exchange is permissible, or that if the statute must mean what the plaintiffs say, then the restriction it implies must be stricken as unconstitutional. Either way, the law survives."
It's interesting to note that the highest percentage of people who would lose their insurance are likely to be predominantly white, Southern and employed full-time.
Who more than likely had insurance they liked but lost it when the great lie was unveiled.
I can see a lot of people are still cheering for average working class Americans to lose access to health care. Such wonderful "patriotism" in our "exceptional" nation.
Who lost access to health care?
I stayed uninsured and I have access to health care.
I hope the SC upholds the ACA law AS WRITTEN, and not "what we meant for it to say". Regardless of so called intent, the language in the law is clear.
I think it's likely they will. Although, I sort of hope they do strike it down to see all the political backlash the Republicans would face.
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.
