It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ACA Subsidies ruled illegal

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: windword
"Illegal aliens will NOT be given insurance on the exchange." - Obama

"You lie!" - Joe Wilson, later admonished for speaking out.
Joe Wilson You Lie Outburst During Obama Presiden…: youtu.be...

youtu.be...

m.weeklystandard.com...

Obama promises illegals both healthcare and amnesty. So, who lied?

Do you not realize that the administration lied to the people? Firstly, they said 45-49 million people needed insurance, many of them illegals.

Then, they minimalize, and say only 11 million need amnesty. Which number is the fact? Which truth do you believe?


edit on 22-7-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
You guys do realize that this decision is almost guaranteed to be repealed right? I wouldn't celebrating anything yet until the SCOTUS actually makes the same ruling as the one in the OP.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal
the emergency treatment you will recieve for a broken ankle
a splint and well if you ask nicely maybe a pain killer for the pain
and a referral to a surgeon

personally it took me close to a week and a chat with a state senator for me to get the surgeon to drop the $2000 down payment he wanted before he did the surgery. and no the social worker informed me that we made too much money to get any kind of financial assistance.
That was with me being unemployed for quite awhile because of the problem that was the cause of the broken ankle.
during that time we really didn't have any extra money matter of fact I was only eating one meal every other day in an attempt to make sure that the rest of the family got enough food.

So sorry but I will stand by my experience!



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: jimmyx
that's great.....let's all give a middle finger to those that can't afford medical insurance....if you are poor and/or sick...tough cookies, you are on your own. poor people just need to go away and die.


What a utter boat load of Male Bovine Excrement, you know as well as I do Jimmy you can walk into any ER in California with a cold and they can't refuse you its the law. You don't even have to be legal citizen no insurance no money just a smile, and you are treated.


there seems to be a different opinion with these people...you know...the professionals that actually work there, not some politician or talk show host.
newsroom.acep.org...



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen




This is the direct result of Congress passing and a President signing an unConstitutional law to begin with.


i disagree. This has everything to do with a "Do Nothing Congress" who's, when comes to passing bills and, you know, doing their job and stuff, motto is "Just Say No".

It's about the GOP long term strategy of shutting down the federal government when they don't get their way.

Some people in America don't believe in democracy, equality, equity, or the American Dream for anyone other than the 1%, those people are called Republicans.





Republicans didn't pass the ACA.

Democrats did, and they are 100% responsible for the illegal parts.

PPACA had and still has dozens of illegal and conflicting and discriminatory and unConstitutional parts from day 1.

Why did you think zero Republicans voted for it ?

All Nay.

The blame game ain't gonna work no more.




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Yes, emergency rooms are only required to stabilize a patient. They do not have to do anything else.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
When this was enacted I was STUNNED by the stupidity of the entire populace, even those who claim to have been educated in some way.

Subsidies: Discounts that are NOT permanent.
Tax Credits: Rebates that are NOT permanent.

I am truly shocked at how stupid the population is. They signed on for something that they could not afford only because the government offered then a handout to afford it - they do not do this with food, or water, or even energy. What the ignorant population failed to see clearly is that the government can REVOKE those inducements at any time. Yes, the tax credits can go away, overnight, and then what? The subsidies, coupons, could be revoked overnight...

Consider going to a car lot and buying car with the dealer saying, "gee, we'll subsidize your payment at 100 dollars a month so you can afford this car you cannot afford, but, in the fine print we reserve the right to stop that 100 dollar payment at any moment." What happens in month three when the dealer stops sending you a 100 dollar check?

If the government was truly in the business of helping people, and they wanted to help people get insurance, the could have written a one page law: "Those who are NOT covered by the myriad of protections now, AND need insurance can pay into Medicare by paying 150 dollars a month or 2 percent of your net income."

That law already had viable Medicare structure in place, would be easy to understand and deal with and would have little to know effect on the economy. The government did not want this, it wanted the ACA for a reason, that reason is the population is stupid and actually believe things are "free."

Consider that NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE believed this to be a tax but Roberts. It is as if men went to the moon and reported back, "yep cheese." The law had to be saved by a magic trick espoused by ONE MAN!

This is not and never has been about health care.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You guys do realize that this decision is almost guaranteed to be repealed right? I wouldn't celebrating anything yet until the SCOTUS actually makes the same ruling as the one in the OP.


But it sure shakes up the Obama supporters for now at least.

Not to mention the chaos and uncertainties that victims will endure.

This could effect the November elections I think, one way or the other.

It might take some time to get up to the SCOTUS.




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

Really? IDK? Perhaps I stuttered in my last reponse, let me restate my initial reaction to blaming health care woes on illegals:

"PULEEEEZE!"

The government has a legitimate concern to provide equitable health care to the citizens it represents. The GOP is hell bent on protecting the "sincerely held beliefs" and "free (paid for) speech" of people called corporations and fetuses!, fetuses!, fetuses!, but when it comes to basic health care for the citizens of the United States of America, they're # out of luck and up a creek without a paddle.

So much for the compassionate conservative.


edit on 22-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So far, to me, it looks like a bunch of right wingers just celebrating a small victory like they just won the war. I'm just trying to help you guys keep things in perspective here.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Republicans didn't pass the ACA.


This a disingenuous cop out. The ACA was created in bi-partisan committee.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

originally posted by: jimmyx
that's great.....let's all give a middle finger to those that can't afford medical insurance....if you are poor and/or sick...tough cookies, you are on your own. poor people just need to go away and die.


What a utter boat load of Male Bovine Excrement, you know as well as I do Jimmy you can walk into any ER in California with a cold and they can't refuse you its the law. You don't even have to be legal citizen no insurance no money just a smile, and you are treated.


there seems to be a different opinion with these people...you know...the professionals that actually work there, not some politician or talk show host.
newsroom.acep.org...


I actually work there, for a government funded community hospital, not for profit Level 2 trauma center and one of the highest rated stroke centers in the southeast.

I am telling you, from experience. Believe me, or not, that's your option, but emergency rooms are NOT walk-in clinics, and are abused as such.

Overcrowding is a fact, and only increased after the ACA. Use of emergency rooms for minor healthcare is a lifestyle, not an insurance issue. People that are typically negligent of their own health issues postpone doctor visits for many reasons, but usually boils down to non-compliance and laziness. They then seek emergency care when the problem can no longer be ignored.

You don't just wake up one day with two toes eaten away by gangrene, with bone showing, and black, dead flesh hanging from your foot, all in a panic because now, it is moving up your leg.

That problem took weeks, months, and years of neglect and non-compliance with diabetes and other issues to develop. But, at 2 am, you finally decide NOW, it may be time to go to the emergency ROOM?!

edit on 22-7-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You guys do realize that this decision is almost guaranteed to be repealed right? I wouldn't celebrating anything yet until the SCOTUS actually makes the same ruling as the one in the OP.


Given the argument the admin made, I'd be surprised if SCOTUS upholds it. The admin argued that fed officials can "stand in the shoes" of the states and act on their behalf basically usurping the rights of the executive/legislative governance apparatus of the states on a whim.

If the SCOTUS allows it to stand it sets a precedent that federally appointed bureaucrats can more or less override any states' government whenever and wherever they life to act on their behalf as the government of the state.

It would signal that there would basically be no more effective state autonomy in this country.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: crankyoldman




They signed on for something that they could not afford only because the government offered then a handout to afford it - they do not do this with food, or water, or even energy.


Really? Where do you think you'd be without government subsidized roads, farms, dams and waterways, etc.? What would be the quality of our food without the FDA?


edit on 22-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I looked for the White House spokesman and all he said was this. . .



Then I searched for a comment from Nancy Pelosi and all she said was. . .



I think this ruling shows how illegal and manipulative this "law" or "tax" is.

Some good news today!



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

So far, to me, it looks like a bunch of right wingers just celebrating a small victory like they just won the war. I'm just trying to help you guys keep things in perspective here.


I agree this not a "victory" by any means yet.

Long way to go.




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I looked for the White House spokesman and all he said was this. . .



Then I searched for a comment from Nancy Pelosi and all she said was. . .



I think this ruling shows how illegal and manipulative this "law" or "tax" is.

Some good news today!


Those are the Republicans that shut down the government when they didn't get their way. I'm sure of it!
edit on 22-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

ok...so...what do you want to happen to these people?...what is your solution?...not treat them?...turn them away and tell them their misery and suffering is their fault, and since they can't pay, please go away?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well, for one, the only thing I am personally "celebrating" is that the text of a law was written, and taken as it was written, and adjudicated by a court.

Regardless of how they complain about what they "intended", which yes, that is their response, it was not written as such. Intent, and the actual text of the law do not match.

The court doesn't care what the "intent" may or may not be. The text is plain, easy to read, and, rather simple to comprehend. Especially the penalty part.

Perhaps if there had not been all the lying about it not being a tax to the public, that may not have happened, but, the truth always comes out in court.

When it became a "tax" in front of SCOTUS, for whatever reason, Roberts ruled the way he did. Setting that aside, reading his opinion, he basically urges people to fight the ruling, because he knew it had flaws.

I seriously doubt that Roberts would have urged that, knowing the flaws, knowing states' rights, to only take a crap on them when they fight back and do what he said to do.

Roberts has taken a huge amount of flack over his decision. I can almost guarantee he, above all others, will rule against states' rights.

There has been, just this week, more talk about trying to force Ruth out. If they do, then yes, I can see the balance tipping, but as seated now, I don't see it. I just cannot buy into that fear.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

The link you posted says this:



Split decision! Fed appeals courts disagree on Obamacare subsidies

In a dramatic split decision, two federal appeals court panels on Tuesday disagreed on whether billions of dollars of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are legal.


Source

I'm sure it will go to the Supreme Court.



new topics




 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join