Supreme Court gives Obama second big health care win in ruling upholding nationwide subsidies

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
This is great news for the publicans going into 2016 . Rather than have the president and Democrat candidates blame the Republicans for not coming up with solutions to fix it in light of a Supreme Court ruling against it the ACA now becomes, again, wholly-owned by the Democrat Party.When the penalties start kicking in with a vengeance next tax season they’re going to hear about it from even those considered their allies
Click to expand...
Its always next year with the Republicans. Twenty years from now I can only imagine what issues they’ll be incompetently and halfheartedly fighting against. Meanwhile they’ll still be giving power to their sworn enemy.
 
I’m so glad that they upheld the law. The opposite would have been a disaster for many ordinary people, who would have lost the subsidy through no fault of their own.

I think they upheld the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.

Of course, Obamacare has flaws. These flaws should be fixed. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?
 
SWolf said:
Is the Supreme Court supposed to interpret the law in an unbiased manner, or push an ideology?
Click to expand...
If you read their opinion you will see interpreting the law is exactly what they did. They interpreted what Congress meant. Now you might not agree with their interpretation. There certainly are SCOTUS rulings I disagree with too. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t interpret the law as they see it.
 
bibcat said:
Nothing in Art. III says anything about judicial review. And Marbury was a coup pulled off by CJ Marshall.
Click to expand...
A long discredited argument by all but cranks…“judicial power” more than amply covers it…
 
bibcat said:
My premiums and those of Mrs. Bibcat have been OK so far, but it would have been better if the SCOTUS had ruled the other way regarding the Private Health Insurance Protection Act (oops, I mean the ACA). Once the whole rotten edifice of private, employer-based health insurance collapses, Uncle Sam would be forced to pick up the pieces. And singe-payer would be born. Welcome to the civilized world.
Click to expand...
It might indeed collapse, notwithstanding that before Obamacare most people had coverage and most were happy with it. People are not happy with Obamacare, but then, that was planned in order to cause full government control of medicine.

But that might not be as satisfying as some think. Government is not geared to do it in the U.S. It doesn’t run any medical system other than VA. It hires insurance companies to administer the rest of the programs. Why people assume government will be more efficient than competing private companies is beyond me. Ultimately, government medicine in the U.S. will probably become what it is in most countries…a two or three tier system in which those with the money get the best while everybody else lives with mediocre care, computer-driven diagnosis and treatment and a lot of “it’s not worth it at her age”.
 
Sy_Noe said:
If you read their opinion you will see interpreting the law is exactly what they did. They interpreted what Congress meant. Now you might not agree with their interpretation. There certainly are SCOTUS rulings I disagree with too. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t interpret the law as they see it.
Click to expand...
Actually, as I understand it, they did not abide by the methodology previously used in giving the plain language precedent over other considerations. That is, the court has previously taken the position they can’t read minds so while they may clarify ambiguous language, they go by the written word. The assumption being if congress wanted it to mean something different, they would have written something different. Not SCOTUS task to fix the law if it’s poorly written-- toss it back to congress.

A precedent in analysis over discrepancies like this was to look at earlier drafts if available and see if the wording changed. That is, if congress struck portions of language out of the draft it was an intentional choice to eliminate that from the law. Which occurred in this case, along with contemporaneous records of a desire to incentivize states to set up their own exchanges as the reason. Gruber, the architect is on record as having stated this on several occasions.

SCOTUS broke with that precedent and simply said, hey there was an overarching purpose so let’s ignore the written word, ignore the evidence for the rationale, and just say we know congress really meant something different despite what they passed and voted into law.

Words have no meaning. Any other case can now be settled in a similar manner. Yeah, they wrote XXXX but what they really meant was YYYYY. So sorry to all you folks who actually complied with the laws, or felt your were bound by them— you can’t just read them and understand they mean what they say. I see that as a dangerous precedent.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It might indeed collapse, notwithstanding that before Obamacare most people had coverage and most were happy with it. People are not happy with Obamacare, but then, that was planned in order to cause full government control of medicine.

But that might not be as satisfying as some think. Government is not geared to do it in the U.S. It doesn’t run any medical system other than VA. It hires insurance companies to administer the rest of the programs. Why people assume government will be more efficient than competing private companies is beyond me. Ultimately, government medicine in the U.S. will probably become what it is in most countries…a two or three tier system in which those with the money get the best while everybody else lives with mediocre care, computer-driven diagnosis and treatment and a lot of “it’s not worth it at her age”.
Click to expand...
Most people are satisfied with Medicare. Isn’t that a government sponsored program?
 
Al_Moritz said:
Yes they did. Praise the Lord!
Click to expand...
Amen! Personally I’m for single payer and abhor the fact that under Obamacare, Republican governors have refused to expand Medicaid. I just find it absolutely disgusting that the richest nation on the planet can’t join other civilized nations and assure that every one of its citizens has the right to health care coverage from their birth to their death. That said, I can hope but we don’t have single payer and not sure if we ever will in this country. I suppose Bibcat has a point that the private sector will have to collapse first. But for now the ACA’s subsidies for those that qualify for them was better than nothing. We couldn’t afford to kick millions off the healthcare coverage they now have thanks to Obama and the Democratic Party. To have done so would have been one of the cruelest and inhumane things to do while we sat twiddling our thumbs waiting for the GOP to do something in 2017 with a newly elected President. If history is any indication and their current inaction of not expanding Medicaid, they would have done nothing for the those without health care coverage.
 
Good_Tidings said:
Most people are satisfied with Medicare. Isn’t that a government sponsored program?
Click to expand...
I don’t think the issue here is ACA, or what medical system will serve the public better.

It’s what is SCOTUS role in considering whether a law is constitutional and whether a law is being executed properly.

Congress can address the health-care system by passing legislation. But if SCOTUS can step in at any time and declare what congress really meant vice what they actually wrote and passed into law, everything in those laws is on unstable ground.
 
bingbell484 said:
I hope that you are correct. ACA is a monumental step forward, but single payer is something that could not be passed in the US. Health and medical special interests just have too much control, sadly.
Click to expand...
No, single payer cannot be passed because the country has not become leftist enough. So the leftists in government (both elected and unelected) have conspired to force single payer (eventually) on the country. It is very un-democratic and frankly its sad to see liberals rejoice at this. I wonder how you all would like it if a conservative Republican majority undid social security, medicare etc. via court decisions.

Ishii
 
Sy_Noe said:
Amen! Personally I’m for single payer and abhor the fact that under Obamacare, Republican governors have refused to expand Medicaid. I just find it absolutely disgusting that the richest nation on the planet can’t join other civilized nations and assure that every one of its citizens has the right to health care coverage from their birth to their death. That said, I can hope but we don’t have single payer and not sure if we ever will in this country. I suppose Bibcat has a point that the private sector will have to collapse first. But for now the ACA’s subsidies for those that qualify for them was better than nothing. We couldn’t afford to kick millions off the healthcare coverage they now have thanks to Obama and the Democratic Party. To have done so would have been one of the cruelest and inhumane things to do while we sat twiddling our thumbs waiting for the GOP to do something in 2017 with a newly elected President. If history is any indication and their current inaction of not expanding Medicaid, they would have done nothing for the those without health care coverage.
Click to expand...
You do realize this country is broke, right? We are borrowing against our grandkids right now. You and I, the folks alive right now can’t possibly pay off the benefits we’ve voted to ourselves— everything we pass, every treat our congress tosses to us is a further extraction from the labors of generations yet unborn. Easy to hand out charity when it’s provided by someone else.
 
Mark121359 said:
Is this the same nine men and women in black robes whom we’ve pinned our hopes on to do the right thing with regards to protecting the institution of marriage?..good luck with that! :rolleyes:

Peace, Mark
Click to expand...
And this is the same supreme court that the Republicans trust to deal with Obama’s executive amnesty. What a joke. They are cowards and part of the problem.

Ishii
 
Six million people aren’t losing healthcare, and Scalia is basically throwing a toddler tantrum. It’s a great day.
 
Good_Tidings said:
Most people are satisfied with Medicare. Isn’t that a government sponsored program?
Click to expand...
Yes and the millions who now have coverage under the ACA aka Obamacare are satisfied too when compared to the nothing they had previously.
 
styrgwillidar said:
I don’t think the issue here is ACA, or what medical system will serve the public better.

It’s what is SCOTUS role in considering whether a law is constitutional and whether a law is being executed properly.

Congress can address the health-care system by passing legislation. But if SCOTUS can step in at any time and declare what congress really meant vice what they actually wrote and passed into law, everything in those laws is on unstable ground.
Click to expand...
I believe the preliminary discussion disclosed what the Congress meant. There were only four words that needed clarification.
As to your first sentence, i was responding to a previous poster not making the claim as to what would serve the public better.
 
ishii said:
And this is the same supreme court that the Republicans trust to deal with Obama’s executive amnesty. What a joke. They are cowards and part of the problem.

Ishii
Click to expand...
They went out on a limb for Citizens United.
 
styrgwillidar said:
You do realize this country is broke, right? We are borrowing against our grandkids right now. You and I, the folks alive right now can’t possibly pay off the benefits we’ve voted to ourselves— everything we pass, every treat our congress tosses to us is a further extraction from the labors of generations yet unborn. Easy to hand out charity when it’s provided by someone else.
Click to expand...
Let the poor rot! Let them go without health care! They can go to the ER for stabilization…if they self-select against it…great as it saves our kids money!

So what if every other first world nation can provide universal healthcare coverage - we CAN"T or WON’T!! I have mine - die poor suckers!

Oh, I just love getting to say those things - they are just soooooo “Christian”!

I’ll take a little Mammon this afternoon, please…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top