| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,572 Views) | |
| chatham | Jun 17 2015, 07:42 AM Post #1996 |
|
You are right about informing. People should be able to choose artificial fats over naturally occurring fats in their diet. Trans fats are known to be associated with adult onset diabetes. Palm oil is a plant based oil that have some beneficial effects. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Trans-Fats_UCM_301120_Article.jsp http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/20120120/natural-trans-fats-less-unhealthy-than-manmade-variety http://humanfoodproject.com/palm-oil-maybe-not-such-a-good-idea-after-all/ Please note in this article it is a high fat diet that is the problem. Normal consumption of palm oil should not be a problem. The American problem with diet is to stuff as much food as possible into the mouth. More so now that people can actually communicate without talking on these communication devices used for telling people how much they are eating. All chew, no talk. |
 |
 
|
| kbp | Jun 17 2015, 07:47 AM Post #1997 |
|
http://khn.org/news/how-four-words-in-huge-health-law-divide-the-supreme-court/ How Four Words In Huge Health Law Divide The Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue a decision this month in a case that could again threaten a key aspect of President Barack Obama’s health law. But this time around, unlike three years ago when the court rejected a constitutional challenge to the law’s individual mandate, the case, King v. Burwell, focuses primarily on statutory interpretation. The issue is whether section 36B means what it seems to say if read literally and in isolation from the rest of the law: that Affordable Care Act subsidies are available only to people “enrolled … through an exchange established by the state.” [It's not just "four words," as the law mentions this NINE times.] And the different interpretations have proven dicey — so much so that each side in the case is having trouble explaining away the evidence supporting the contrary position. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli and other defenders of the subsidies have failed to suggest any very plausible reason — other than sloppy draftsmanship, on which Verrilli has not much relied — why Congress said “established by the state” if it intended that subsidies also be available in the federally established exchange. On the other hand, ACA opponents who read “established by the state” literally have produced little evidence that the law’s drafters deliberately and quietly planted in an obscure subclause the words that could become the seeds of the law’s destruction. Plaintiffs in the case suggest that the drafters inserted these four words in order to pressure states to establish their own exchanges. But the legislative history offers scant evidence of this intent. And the three dozen states in question either failed to notice or disregarded it. [See their intent on the disincentive of NOT expanding Medicaid!] How these explanations sway the justices — or at least five of them — will determine whether the language drafted by Congress means that nearly 6.4 million low-and-middle-income people are not eligible for the overhaul’s tax subsidies because they live in a state that chose to rely on the federal government’s healthcare.gov, rather than establish its own online insurance marketplace. The subsidies make insurance affordable to many of the people who seek Obamacare coverage because they don’t get health coverage through their employers. If the court rules that the subsidies are available only in states — mostly blue — that established their own exchanges, insurance markets in the other three dozen or so states might collapse. Unless Congress or the states reliant on healthcare.gov were to move fast to limit the damage, few people in those states would buy individual insurance. Those who did would likely have health problems and premiums would soar. Many ACA opponents say that section 36B “means what it says,” as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia implied at the March 4 oral argument, even if the wording “may not be the statute [Congress] intended” and even assuming that it might “produce disastrous consequences.” To the contrary, say Verrilli and other supporters, the law’s overall text, structure, design and history make clear that Congress intended to make subsidies available in all 50 states. They say the challengers’ interpretation would defeat the law’s purpose of making health insurance widely affordable. The Internal Revenue Service came to the same conclusion in an interpretive rule, to which Verrilli argued the justices should defer if in doubt. [The argument is that it couldn't have meant what it says!] As in 2012, the stakes in King v. Burwell are so high that Obama has made it clear that he would attack any decision that would cripple the health law as legally indefensible and politically motivated. “[T]his should be an easy case,” Obama said June 8. “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up … based on a twisted interpretation of four words. … I’m optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight.” The next day, he added (without specific reference to the court) that “it seems so cynical to want to take health care away from millions of people.” These shots across the court’s bow came even though Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito had strongly suggested during the argument that they would vote against the administration’s position. Alito also suggested the possibility of delaying until 2016 the effective date of any decision against the administration. Such a delay, he said, would give the states and Congress time to avoid the disruption that would be caused if the court ruled the premium subsidies now available in the three-dozen states using healthcare.gov are illegal. Justice Clarence Thomas, who was silent as usual during the arguments, is expected to vote with Scalia and Alito. The four liberal justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — seemed poised to line up with Obama. So the president will win if either Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with him. While Kennedy’s vote is still up in the air, ACA supporters were cheered by his assertion to the lawyer challenging the subsidies that “there’s a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument.” Kennedy reasoned that the states are being unconstitutionally “coerced” if, as the challengers argue, the law requires them either to establish their own exchanges or see their residents disqualified from the subsidies. The only way to avoid constitutional problems, suggested Kennedy, may be to resolve any ambiguities in Obama’s favor. This seemed inconsistent with the suggestions by Scalia, Alito and the challengers that the relevant language is free of ambiguity and without constitutional problems. Roberts was sphinxlike during the argument in King v. Burwell. The case puts him in an unenviable position. When Roberts stunned court-watchers by joining the four liberal justices and upholding the individual mandate in the 2012 decision, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, he was bitterly assailed by his usual allies — Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito — and was called a traitor by many other conservatives. This barrage was intensified by a well-sourced news report that Roberts had initially voted to strike down the individual mandate and changed his mind — provoking a huge battle inside the court — after liberals led by Obama had preemptively denounced any decision to strike down the law as politically motivated, conservative “judicial activism.” The conservative denunciations of Roberts will be even more bitter if he sides with Obama this time, too. On the other hand, if Roberts votes with the other four Republican appointees to gut the Democratic president’s signature accomplishment, it will feed the kind of attacks that the chief justice dreads on the Roberts court’s conservative majority as a bunch of robed politicians. Looking to the future, a ruling against Obama could be extremely awkward politically for Republican members of Congress, presidential candidates and officials in the mostly red, affected states, even though it might be cheered (at least initially) by Republican voters. In this scenario, the president and other Democrats would immediately demand that Republicans help them save the subsidies of millions of people at risk of losing their health insurance, by adopting new legislation. Some Republicans say this would be an opportunity to extract compromises from Obama such as more choices for consumers – especially less expensive, less comprehensive health insurance options; the elimination of the mandate to buy insurance; or restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits. Others predict a humiliating and internally divisive Republican cave-in to avoid being blamed for the “disastrous consequences” that Justice Scalia hypothesized. Whatever the outcome, the chief justice, in his tenth year on the Court, is in for a long, hot summer. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 17 2015, 07:58 AM Post #1998 |
|
This is the fuzzy solution that has setting up different than establish, and bumps in to a few other obstacles written into the law. If it works, the "coercive" issue is off the table. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 17 2015, 08:42 AM Post #1999 |
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/06/11/the-supreme-court-would-help-democrats-by-killing-obamacare/ The Supreme Court would help Democrats by killing Obamacare Maybe the pending King v. Burwell decision will finally put Obamacare out of its misery. No matter what President Obama or Health and Human Services secretary Sylvia Burwell say, the truth is Obamacare is just limping along as another misguided, over-priced and underperforming government program. In practice, it’s not doing anything like what was promised. Like other big government programs, Obamacare is slowly building a constituency as more people succumb to the coerced dependency Democrats see as vital to their political strength. But even some Democrats privately acknowledge that the minimal positive impact the law is having is not worth the cost and that it isn’t getting any easier to defend. So if Obamacare is brought down in the Supreme Court, it could actually help Obama and the Democrats save face. And it would keep Hillary Clinton from being distracted in 2016 by having to defend Obamacare as premiums continue to rise, overall healthcare costs keep going up and the program stagnates. [It would not die that quickly, but we'd witnessed insurance companies jumping ship and rates going up up up ....which they will do even in states with their own exchange as the 3-R's funding goes down down down.] If the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies and the Democrats were smart, they would secretly admit Obamacare is a failure, blame Republicans and take it as an opportunity to quickly dispatch with their grandiose notions of a single-payer system as part of a government takeover of healthcare. Just a few Democrats could quietly join with Republicans to provide vouchers for the uninsured and make a few other relatively modest fixes, plus keep parts of the law that people like, and take credit for turning healthcare in America into a market-driven success instead of a government-managed failure. And while they do it, most Democrats could continue to demagogue on the issue from the safety of their minority position in Congress. One of the smartest long-term Republican plans to replace Obamacare is from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a former physician. His plan would allow states to “opt out of Obamacare mandates and instead receive tax credits for health savings accounts,” relying on incentives for individuals to buy health insurance coverage. His Patient Freedom Act is already backed by a number of Senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and is a solid conservative plan in the event that the court rules against the Obama administration later this month. [S.O.S., different FREE MONEY plan!] The bottom line is that Republicans need to have a plan in place, or Democrats will do something to fill the void. Of course, if the president gets his way, the court will rule in his favor and this will be a moot point for the time being. But Obamacare deficiencies will continue to grow and Democrats will continue to face the dissatisfaction of a program that really hasn’t fixed anything — and has actually made things worse. Oddly enough, the Supreme Court would be doing Democrats a favor if they put a stake through the heart of this failed law. [The majority of the enrollees come from the economic class that must learn lessons firsthand, the hard way. They'll drop out as they learn what "out-of-pocket expense" means.] . |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 17 2015, 08:46 AM Post #2000 |
|
Unfortunately, I think Kennedy will save Obamacare this time. But I am interested in how Chief Justice Roberts will vote on this. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 17 2015, 08:56 AM Post #2001 |
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2015/06/09/king-v-burwell-obama-pounds-the-table-to-distract-attention-from-his-lawbreaking/ King v. Burwell: Obama Pounds The Table To Distract Attention From His Lawbreaking Michael Cannon 6-9-15 There is an old lawyers’ adage: “When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.” President Obama will deliver a speech today in which he pounds the table with the supposed successes of the Affordable Care Act. The address is part effort to influence the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in King v. Burwell, part effort to spin a potential loss in that case. The problem is, those supposed successes are not due to the ACA. They are the product, two federal courts have found, of billions of dollars of illegal taxes, borrowing, and spending imposed by the IRS at the behest of the president’s political appointees. The president can pound the table all he wants about his theories of what Congress intended, or how, in his opinion, those illegal taxes have benefited America. No speech can change the fact that he signed into law a health care bill that makes it unmistakably clear that those taxes and subsidies are only available “through an Exchange established by the State.” If he didn’t like that part of the bill, he shouldn’t have signed it. The president thinks it is “a contorted reading of the statute” to insist on the unmistakably clear distinction Congress drew between Exchanges established by “States” versus the federal government. The Congressional Research Service disagrees. So do the D.C. Circuit, and even the Fourth Circuit. Even Harvard law professor Noah Feldman says the president’s theories “seem forced.” Two federal courts have found the law is clear, and the president is on the wrong side of it. The president would rather that you not focus on that small detail. But the Supreme Court’s job is to hold the president to the law he enacted. Let’s hope they do. Because if the Court instead allows the IRS to tax and spend without congressional authorization, the disruption will be much greater than any caused by ObamaCare. The president thinks it is “a contorted reading of the statute” to insist on the unmistakably clear distinction Congress drew between Exchanges established by “States” versus the federal government. The Congressional Research Service disagrees. So do the D.C. Circuit, and even the Fourth Circuit. Even Harvard law professor Noah Feldman says the president’s theories “seem forced.” Two federal courts have found the law is clear, and the president is on the wrong side of it. The president would rather that you not focus on that small detail. But the Supreme Court’s job is to hold the president to the law he enacted. Let’s hope they do. Because if the Court instead allows the IRS to tax and spend without congressional authorization, the disruption will be much greater than any caused by ObamaCare. [That last part depends on how any ruling is written. Hopefully the court will not open the door further than Congress already has for allowing agencies of the government to write law.] |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 17 2015, 09:36 AM Post #2002 |
|
I'll try not to pretend I am so smart that I can out guess WTH Kennedy meant with the statements he made in the court.... The sticking point Kennedy brought up was that withholding tax credits from people in states not establishing their own exchange was "coercive" on the states to cooperate. That means Kennedy starts by reading the law to REQUIRE of the states to establish their own exchange for such credits to subsidize qualified enrollees. If he feels that is too "coercive," then what is the solution??? It looks like it would be to rule a few sentences of the law are unconstitutional (they skip interpretation then!) in some manner that allows the balance of the law to provide tax credit subsidies to all states using the federal exchange. They're talking possibly 6 million could lose subsidies to this "coercive" part of the law, so we're talking about around 2% of the population. That tells us the court had decided 2% is too much when determining if states must establish their own system to get the FREE MONEY. When the court told us that the threat of losing ALL the FREE MONEY for ALL of Medicaid in states that did not cooperate freely (incentive or disincentive?) was going too far, the head count was a little higher. What would the states have lost? The Medicaid in place before Obamacare is FREE MONEY that is ONLY provided to states that set up Medicaid programs and tossed in a percentage of matching funds. Now, go back to Kennedy's route to calling this "coercive." For it to be "coercive" he determined that the law is interpreted to tell states they MUST establish their own exchange to get the FREE MONEY. Compare the pre-Obamacare Medicaid coverage in which states must match funds used in their state systems to provide care. About 65 million receive Medicaid now. In the US population, hat's about 20% v. 2% in the subsidy battle of this case. Why was Medicaid set up for states to have the option of cooperating to receive federal funds? There's that thing about our nation being a united bunch of states, otherwise the federal government would do as it pleases. Somewhere in the means Kennedy would have to use to classify the law as "coercive" is the idea that there are many systems presently more "coercive" in place to get FREE MONEY. My take on it is that Kennedy was sending a message related to how "coercive" the government can be, while expressing the law is written to be exactly that. If he does go along with the liberal Justices, he'll certainly have to write his opinion separate for me to understand WTH he was hoping to accomplish.  Edited by kbp, Jun 17 2015, 09:39 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 17 2015, 10:04 AM Post #2003 |
|
It mentions "chaos" 3 times within the last 5 paragraphs. That's the "chaos" the country endured for about 237 years before the IRS rewrote the law! Desperation here!!! . |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jun 17 2015, 11:15 AM Post #2004 |
|
The problem with Obamacare is Obama. He had an approval rate of 71% when he took office. He had a supermajority of the House & Senate. He could have written a bill by including the Republicans, but he didn't. He didn't even include most Democrats He broke the most important rule of Power. Use it wisely or you won't have it. He is an arrogant man, a Narcissist. Just wait and see what happens if SCOTUS rules against him. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 18 2015, 10:28 AM Post #2005 |
|
What to do with the golden opportunity, should it come about????
Waste it or make "strategic" changes that shift blame for failure???????? . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 18 2015, 10:57 AM Post #2006 |
|
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-health-law-decision-20150617-story.html Obama can't lose if you go by this article! |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 18 2015, 11:14 AM Post #2007 |
|
More on the "chaos" issue, the doom & gloom of losing money from others......a ruling would fall on the 6.4 million people who receive the subsidies ...Health economists calculate ... about two-thirds of people who receive subsidies through HealthCare.gov would drop their insurance altogether That reduces the head count of those losing coverage to 4 million, or about 1.33% of the US population. No so chaotic when you look at it that way. On to the MAJOR LOSSES!! ...Businesses that have benefited ...put the 2015 figure at about $15 billion Who went along with Obamacare and saw profits jump? The entire premise was that we'd all save $2500/year because more paying customers would mean fewer ER visits and other treatments not paid for spread throughout all that did pay their bills. It seems like 4 million losing coverage will put us back where we were, so we'll lose that $2500 in savings ...if they drop all the new insurance regulations (FREE PILL). . Edited by kbp, Jun 18 2015, 11:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 18 2015, 11:42 AM Post #2008 |
|
Walgreens is searching to find our savings!
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 19 2015, 07:51 PM Post #2009 |
|
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/18/are-obamacares-22-health-insurance-co-ops-near-financial-collapse/print/ S.O.S., different day. Most all of the government coop's are going under. I'm not sure WTH the idea was here. Maybe a taste of something like single payer in states? |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 19 2015, 07:56 PM Post #2010 |
|
Just a small part of an article praising the brilliant one. If Obamacare fails, blame the Republicans for not saving it! |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:54 AM Jul 13