Court Strikes Down Federal Obamacare Subsidies

[icenine]

I would posit that millions of people losing subsidies, many in red states, would bode very well for the Democrats in 2016. It is obvious that the Republican judges are scouring all the legislation they do not like for typos in order to become the third branch of Congress. This is probably worrying Republicans because it is easy to be stridently against the ACA as long as they do not ever actually repeal the law.

If the ACA was repealed the GOP would be adrift without any rallying point (helping the rich is not a good placard) for the baggers to hold on to. I bet deep down inside they are glad to have Obamacare....something they can rail against without having the responsiblilty to create a plan of their own.

[Rajoo]

Great comment from the link from Ice.

Kenneth Parsons: "This is why it is so important to get your selection for judges approved. Courts decide law based on political agenda's not law."

Holly Hobby anyone?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Another screw up by the Leftys trying to ruin healthcare. Maybe the SOTUS will just toss the whole thing out this time around.
Here comes another loss for that idiot Holder if he has the balls to hang around.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health...sidies-n161981

Here ya go Deej.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...y.html?hpid=z1

[Tom Joad]

I'm not eligible for any subsidy, so I might as well take the Republican attitude about it.

Fuck it, do away with them.

[whell]

Here's the article to check out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...ig-v-sebelius/

This article predates today's decision and is a critique of a lower court ruling in the same case. The language in the law is actually contradictory, very contradictory.

Frankly, if memory serves, the authors of the bill we're having the same political calculations that Icenine echos in post 11 above. They specifically identified the state exchanges as the vehicle for subsidy distribution to put political pressure on the states to set up their own exchanges. Remember that PPACA made available quite a bit of money to states to incent them to create their own exchanges as well. So much for the argument about "Congressional intent" in this case.

Of course maybe if Dems like Pelosi would have found out what was in the bill before they passed it, we wouldn't be having this issue right now.

[finnbow]

It's inevitable that any law as big and broad as the ACA is going to have issues. That said, it's still better than what preceded it (if only barely).

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

The language in the law is actually contradictory, very contradictory.

So is the Bible.

Shit the law is 1990 pages long.

http://computationallegalstudies.com...h-of-h-r-3962/

Anything that long has got to be full of contractions.

I'll bet War and Peace is Full of Contradictions.

Or Stephen King's "The Stand".

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Or Stephen King's "The Stand".

Excellent book. The movie, not so much. But, the book I thoroughly enjoyed.

Dave

[barbara]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It's inevitable that any law as big and broad as the ACA is going to have issues. That said, it's still better than what preceded it (if only barely).

Yes, better than what we had before.

People have short memories and forget all the tweaking that was done after the fact to Medicare reform. Any big legislation like this will take years of amendments.

I see the ACA as a stepping stone to a single payer system. Might take some time to get there, but we gotta start somewhere.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

So is the Bible.

Shit the law is 1990 pages long.

http://computationallegalstudies.com...h-of-h-r-3962/

Anything that long has got to be full of contractions.

I'll bet War and Peace is Full of Contradictions.

Or Stephen King's "The Stand".

Except that one could make the case that what is identified in this case as the "contradictory language" was placed there by design (as partof a political calculation) by the Bill's authors. In fact, that same language is repeated multiple times within the law.