| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,652 Views) | |
| chatham | Jul 18 2014, 05:59 PM Post #796 |
|
So with all the illegal children coming across the southern border, bring diseases that potentially are epidemic in nature will give another reason for obama topush his individual mandate for health insurance before he leaves office in a long 2 yrs and 5 mos. |
 |
 
|
| kbp | Jul 19 2014, 08:35 AM Post #797 |
|
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/07/18/What-will-remain-of-ObamaCare What will remain of ObamaCare? This is a good (short) read on how the administration just announced that a "territory" is not a "State." I'm just amazed at that action, knowing a territory is defined as a state in more than one location of the text of the law.
BUT... ....the IRS interpreted the law to allow a rule that says the HHS will establish an exchange and declare it to have been "established by a State" in how they'll allow tax credits and impose the Roberts' ruling of mandate penalty taxes... because it was the intent of Congress for ALL the people to have access to the federally designed Marketplace subsidies. I'm catching lots of post-law Congressional intent popping up here that conflicts with itself, subject to what part of the law you happen to be reading and what day of the week it is when you read it! The intent of Congress was evidently to allow the HHS to be a State and a territory to not be a State, even though they defined them as such. Edited by kbp, Jul 19 2014, 08:38 AM.
|
|
|
|
| wingedwheel | Jul 19 2014, 08:47 AM Post #798 |
Not Pictured Above
|
The name of the bill was the Affordable Care Act. It didn't make healthcare more affordable. In fact it made it more expensive. Therefore using liberal thinking we should abandon the writing of the bill and let judges change the law because the intent was to make it affordable. |
|
|
| kbp | Jul 19 2014, 09:30 AM Post #799 |
|
Well, that intent thingy can be a mystery to all until SCOTUS writes the final report on it! If it was the intent of Congress for there to be federal exchanges providing subsidies, why did they not write the law in a manner that said such would happen in all States and then add a small portion of text explaining how a State could apply to handle their own exchange? Maybe because they were in a rush to write the over-sized script and time limits forced them to take the easier approach of piecing it together by copying portions of previously proposed laws full of ideas they'd proposed ...those ideas included INCENTIVES for States to cooperate if they wanted their constituents to receive portion of the FREE MONEY? All prior to Obamacare.... Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) had sponsored a bill that withheld premium credits in states that didn’t establish Exchanges or implement the bill’s employer mandate. Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) had sponsored bills that provided the tax credits ONLY in states that enacted specific insurance regulations. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) then added more muscle to the text for the conditional tax credits allotted only to states establishing Exchanges as he added to the portions copied from the Finance and HELP to Obamacare. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) did not eliminate the text in question before presenting it to the House for a vote. If you want to find the real Congressional intent, just read the original source of the text: the Finance and HELP sponsored bills where they copied the Obamacare text from. Of course that would be too simple for the courts when interpreting who gets the "Affordable" here! Edited by kbp, Jul 19 2014, 09:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 19 2014, 09:44 AM Post #800 |
|
Back to defining "territories"...
Now we just need to figure out if the new law overrides the old, the old overrides the new, if the administrators wrote new definitions for the old law.... and then we can move forward in determining Congressional intent for the most recent definition that does not apply here now! Edited by kbp, Jul 19 2014, 09:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jul 20 2014, 11:06 AM Post #801 |
|
A Lawsuit Could Destroy Obamacare In These 36 States http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lawsuit-could-destroy-obamacare-36-130900895.html |
|
|
|
| Mason | Jul 21 2014, 12:07 AM Post #802 |
Parts unknown
|
. Neverending Open-endedness http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-20/white-house-quietly-exempts-45-million-people-5-territories-obamacare . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jul 21 2014, 07:34 AM Post #803 |
|
Obamacare defined territories as States. HHS found some older law that allowed a contrary definition, somehow. I suspect the move will drop both the average policy cost and the head count of the uninsured Obamacare did not insure, as territory residents most likely would not be included in the new numbers. |
|
|
|
| chatham | Jul 22 2014, 09:27 AM Post #804 |
|
Breaking on FOX business… US Appeals court strikes down some health law insurance subsidies. ETA: significant blow to the implementation of the health care law. Edited by chatham, Jul 22 2014, 09:27 AM.
|
|
|
|
| chatham | Jul 22 2014, 09:36 AM Post #805 |
|
36 states that did not set up their own obama care cannot have subsidies granted by the federal government. About 7.4 million affected. Abuse of executive orders and the court was reluctant to rule that way. This court is one below the Supreme Court. It was the DC court. Edited by chatham, Jul 22 2014, 09:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
| chatham | Jul 22 2014, 09:38 AM Post #806 |
|
Health care costs have been declining not becasue of obamacare but is a global phenomenon. So sayeth an economist guest on FOX business. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jul 22 2014, 09:44 AM Post #807 |
|
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101819065 One story that Drudge lined to: |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jul 22 2014, 10:00 AM Post #808 |
|
Foxnews story on the ruling: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/federal-appeals-court-invalidates-some-obamacare-subsidies-in-blow-to-health/
Chief Justice Roberts has a chance to redeem itself. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jul 22 2014, 10:00 AM Post #809 |
|
n a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared Tuesday that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal. A judicial panel in a 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. "Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. "We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly." In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a "not-so-veiled attempt to gut" Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority "portends disastrous consequences." Indeed, the decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare's goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it. The Obama administration is certain to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel's decision, which for now does not have the rule of law. The ruling endorsed a controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that argues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges. Subsidies for more than 2 million people who bought coverage on state exchanges would not be affected by Tuesday's ruling if it is upheld. It will go to SCOTUS eventually. |
|
|
|
| DukieInKansas | Jul 22 2014, 10:21 AM Post #810 |
|
My neighbor is currently working as an independent contractor for a local company. In a month, she may have an opportunity to become an employee but commented on the pay being low. I asked if benefits would be included and the response was yes but she already has Obamacare for free. I really wanted to tell her that it wasn't free to me - since I'm helping to pay for her coverage. Bit my tongue in the interest of peace in the neighborhood. Thanks for letting me vent. |
|
|
|
| 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