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.
Some of you seem to think this settles the matter once and for all, but all the court did was kick the legal can down the road so it's liable to come up yet again.
This chicken$#*t ruling was an obvious face-saving maneuver to avoid confronting the fact they painted themselves into a corner when previously ruling the individual mandate was essential to the ACA's survivability.
Alito's 1st paragraph in dissent sums it up nicely:
"Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue."
Scalia once called the Affordable Care Act "SCOTUScare." He was correct.
More than a dozen states and a few individuals don't have legal standing to sue ? I don't know who would have standing, but you're right, the Court managed to avoid the constitutional issues.
Everyone who thought Court has a nice, comfy Republican majority were wrong again.
So how does a state or individual claim they were harmed by the ACA since there is no penalty and joining the plan is optional.
The republicans participated in the development of the ACA for a year, there were congressional hearings with experts. Then the republicans decided they didn't want to pass this under a democratic president. All done in full view of the public.
Trump thought he hit the lottery with his 3 supreme court appointments, blame him.
Fake information (here is the truth):
"These negotiations will be on C-Span, and so the public will be part of the conversation and we'll see the choices that are being made."
On Wednesday, March 17, 2010, House Majority Leader said that, "We're going to have a clean up or down vote on the Senate bill-that will be on the rule." According to Majority Leader, any Member who votes for the health care takeover rule will also be voting "straight up" for all of the bill's special deals.
Backroom Deals In the Democrats Health Care Takeover
Cornhusker Kickback: Perhaps the most well known in the Senate bill, the provision, included at the behest of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), ensures that Nebraska would be the only state to have the full amount of its increased Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.
The Louisiana Purchase: The Senate bill provides extra Medicaid funding for any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area. Because of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana is the only state that would qualify for the money. The $300 million provision for Louisiana was slipped in late in the process to persuade Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) to support the health care takeover.
Gator Aid: At the request of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), the Senate bill includes a formula for protecting certain Medicare Advantage enrollees from billions in cuts. The formula would only apply to five states, most notably to Florida in which 800,000 of the state's one million Medicare Advantage users would be exempt from cuts.
New England Handouts: In addition to the $100 million included in federal Medicaid payments for Nebraska, the bill provides two New England states with even more money Medicaid funding. According to CBO, the Senate bill now contains about $600 million in extra Medicaid cash to Vermont, and about $500 million in additional money for Medicaid to Massachusetts, making these three states the only to receive such funding. Despite claims that these cushy extras for a few states would be scaled back, reports indicate that the White House is still making deals so these states can keep the handouts.
The Dodd Clinic: Section 10502(a) of the bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed "health care facility" affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state with only one public academic medical and dental school. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) later sent a press release saying that he was securing the money for the University of Connecticut, and then Dodd bragged that, "These provisions will bring millions of dollars to the state so that Connecticut's residents can receive quality, affordable health care."
Montana Medicare Earmark: A provision slipped into the Senate bill by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Section 1881A(b)(2), specifically expands Medicare coverage for individuals who reside "in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009." The area the bill refers to is an asbestos contaminated area near Libby, Montana, for which Sen. Max Baucus has been trying to secure funding for years.
This was obviously a back door attempt by the republicans to destroy the ACA having failed in the senate vote, third time around. Rather strange situation with the White House attacking the ACA rather than defending.
It's interesting you consider asking the court to hold itself to its own holding to be a "back door."
COURT: "The ACA cannot survive without the individual mandate."
PLAINTIFFS: "OK, now that the individual mandate has been effectively eliminated, strike down the law."
COURT: "Wait, we said that? Uh... well... oh hey look, a squirrel!!" *shoves plaintiffs out the door*
Alito's 1st paragraph in dissent sums it up nicely:
"Today’s decision is the third installment in our epic Affordable Care Act trilogy, and it follows the same pattern as installments one and two. In all three episodes, with the Affordable Care Act facing a serious threat, the Court has pulled off an improbable rescue."
Scalia once called the Affordable Care Act "SCOTUScare." He was correct.
More than a dozen states and a few individuals don't have legal standing to sue ? I don't know who would have standing, but you're right, the Court managed to avoid the constitutional issues.
Everyone who thought Court has a nice, comfy Republican majority were wrong again.
The basis for this decision was the claim Texas and the other states and individuals were harmed, they were not.
They should, it never should have been deleted in the 2017 Tax reform.
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.
