ACA Subsidies ruled illegal

a reply to: NavyDoc

I really have a hard time believing that this legislation was passed in order to break the healthcare system all so that the people in charge can push their true solution (usually a single payer system).

If this is the case, why are the Democrats fighting SO hard for this bill? If the idea was for it to come out, destroy the system then push the new system when everyone demands the fix, then why haven't they let it topple everything yet? The way I see it. This law is just the result of poor political legislative drafting inspired by corruption to the insurance industries and the people in charge are really trying to make this work despite the fact that it is a piece of turd legislation. They are probably doing this because they want to justify their initial support for it. If they can show the legislation to be working, they can say, "see I told you it would work!" Then there would be sunshine and rainbows and everyone would forget about the problems or something. I don't know exactly how a progressive mind is supposed to think. But I certainly don't buy the Cloward-Piven angle.

a reply to: chiefsmom

sadly not;

why do you think these systems were created in the first place?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a progressive mind would be for a single-payer system.

Establishment democrats in congress are mostly just corporatists with a touch of left-wing flavor, similar to how establishment GOP is a corporatist with a touch of militarism, and a tea-bagging congressperson is a corporatist with a dash of right-wing populism.

as I see it, it show the ultimate weakness within the democratic party, while the GOP implodes on itself, the Democratic party has basically broken down into a grey mush.

ACA was passed because obama and the democratic party in congress knew that a single-payer system would face far too much opposition from certain campeign contributors, and the blue-dogs within the democratic party.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I really have a hard time believing that this legislation was passed in order to break the healthcare system all so that the people in charge can push their true solution (usually a single payer system).

Nothing hard to believe about it.

That is the way it is.

When I speak to conservatives about health care policy, I’m often asked the question: “Do you think that Obamacare is secretly a step toward single-payer health care?” I always explain that, while progressives may want single-payer, I don’t think that Obamacare is deliberately designed to bring about that outcome. Well, yesterday on PBS’ Nevada Week In Review, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) was asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system. His answer? “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

Single Payer is the end game

Bottom line the Reids, the Obama's, and every other 'progressive' clearly do not believe in free market capitalism.

a reply to: windword
The site that you linked to is a private site, run by Dog Media Solutions. I googled them and got three hits. Their address is an apartment building in Spokane, WA that offers studio, 1 and 2 BR apartments.

Not sure how much faith I would put in their info.

I wish some people would wake up to the snip that is being shoveled by the ACA defenders.

Listen up:

The largest healthcare provider in this country is the US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

What a certain group of shills on capitol hill are doing is saying 'their' product is better than than thousands of private business who bring the a better market to the table.

For all intents, and purposes those people on Capitol Shill, are lobbying theirs is 'better' (ACA).

The difference here is those 'lobbyists' in DC get to make up their own rules(Regulation) as they go along (the affordable shaft act') to kill off the compettion.

Notice the rise of people on government ran healthcare and the corresponding rise in premiums.

The more people on those programs the higher healthcare costs have risen.

That is all by design.

The end game BIG GOVERNMENT single payer.

a reply to: neo96

Reading that article, it certainly doesn't sound like Reid is using Coward-Piven to achieve this goal. It reads to me like he wants Obamacare to stay, but as a stop-gap measure while they (the Dems) work on implementing a single payer system. It says nothing about destroying the health care industry by bankrupting it so that they can force a new solution down everyone's throats. I mean, if you see that, that's grand; but I that is connecting too many dots in the article.

Also, since when does Reid speak for the entire Democratic party?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MarlinGrace

the Health Care industry was a "war zone" before the ACA, with expenditure caps, disqualifying pre-conditions, insurance cancellation for getting sick, insurance company death panels, for real.................

Things are better now than they were before the ACA.

Better now? Wow that is optimistic So many I know have been screwed over, some losing their health care due to cost. I had 2 heart attacks while insured with the same company I was never dropped, and death panels are already covered in the ACA. I never experienced the war zone. I do understand disqualifying preconditions, calling Farmers when the house is on fire and paying the first payment of $100 bucks is hardly fair, no one can stay in business under those circumstances.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Reading that article, it certainly doesn't sound like Reid is using Coward-Piven to achieve this goal.

Sure it does.

Since millions of Americans won't be able to pay for private insurance. By law they have to be enrolled on to medicaid.

Since medicaid already can't pay it's bills which means they will 'have' to do something to 'fix' something the ACA was suppose to do.

But then again.

The US government has no 'business' in business other than to get the hell out of the way.

From the living wage bullsnip.

To the financial regulation of wall street.

To the never ending GD demagoguery of corporations that leads to asinine 'laws'.

To 'If you like your border, you can keep your border'.

The cloward and Piven attack on this country by 'progressives' has many faces, thus many issues with the 'end justifying the means'.

To overload, overwhelm and crash the system.

a reply to: neo96

Those are all assumptions gleamed by reading further into the article and looking at what YOU think is going to happen with these systems in place. Reading the article with a neutral bias, it reads like Reid truly believes that Obamacare will work and that it is a good holdover solution until they can get single payer on the books. Reid may be wrong about those thoughts and Obamacare does destroy the health care industry, but that doesn't make him a facilitator of Coward-Piven. It just makes him an idiot.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those are all assumptions gleamed by reading further into the article and looking at what YOU think is going to happen with these systems in place.

Those are hardly assumptions.

That is the reality of the current state of the union.

And since progressives came along people are now more broke, more dependent upon government for their existence than EVER in this nations entire history.

It is not the place of the federal government to provide for the materialistic WANTS of the masses.

NEVER has been.

Healthcare is a materialistic WANT.

Since the EMTLA was a law created that says hospitals can't refuse to treat people.

So the entire argument is over is all about who pays for it.

And the MOB thinks someone else should be paying.

a reply to: MarlinGrace


There are millions of people benefiting from Obamacare, and I'm one them. The problems, I mentioned, with the the Insurance industry pre-Obamacare were real and adversely affecting millions of people.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it reads like Reid truly believes that Obamacare will work

I can believe that.
Reid believes that our southern border is secure. No great leap to think that Obamacare will work.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those are all assumptions gleamed by reading further into the article and looking at what YOU think is going to happen with these systems in place.

Those are hardly assumptions.

They certainly are assumptions. Mostly because none of that has actually happened yet.

a reply to: neo96

Healthcare is a materialistic WANT.

I guess that's why Jesus walked around healing people.

And the MOB thinks someone else should be paying.

No. The "mob" support insurance pools.

a reply to: windword

The problems, I mentioned, with the the Insurance industry pre-Obamacare were real and adversely affecting millions of people.

And post ACA is better?
Where is that $2,500.00 per year/family average savings that was promised?
I don't know anyone who has a smaller health care bill since the ACA passed.
Nearly all have less care at greater cost.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

I really have a hard time believing that this legislation was passed in order to break the healthcare system all so that the people in charge can push their true solution (usually a single payer system).

If this is the case, why are the Democrats fighting SO hard for this bill? If the idea was for it to come out, destroy the system then push the new system when everyone demands the fix, then why haven't they let it topple everything yet? The way I see it. This law is just the result of poor political legislative drafting inspired by corruption to the insurance industries and the people in charge are really trying to make this work despite the fact that it is a piece of turd legislation. They are probably doing this because they want to justify their initial support for it. If they can show the legislation to be working, they can say, "see I told you it would work!" Then there would be sunshine and rainbows and everyone would forget about the problems or something. I don't know exactly how a progressive mind is supposed to think. But I certainly don't buy the Cloward-Piven angle.

Shrug. It's win-win for them. If people like it, they can take the credit, if it doesn't they can blame the Rethuglicans and then come in with single payer so they got what they really want.

a reply to: butcherguy


You can blame the greedy insurance companies, protecting their precious bottom line, for that. I don't think health care should be a for profit business.

few more links on the confusing rulings today

www.cnn.com... CNN says its gonna go to the supreme court so i guess we get another ruling from the top that could decide the fate or at least a large part of the aca

www.khi.org... from Kansas health institute and issues being delt with in kansas

TOPEKA — Conflicting federal court rulings are raising questions about whether consumers in Kansas and Missouri will continue to be eligible for subsidies when purchasing private health insurance through the Obamacare marketplace. Document Appeals Court Decision-Fourth Circuit Download .PDF View Document A three-member panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said Tuesday that only consumers purchasing coverage through state-operated marketplaces are eligible for federal tax credits. If the 2-to-1 ruling stands, consumers in the 36 states – including Kansas and Missouri – that didn’t establish their own marketplaces would no longer be eligible for subsidies. On average, the subsidies have lowered the cost of premiums by 76 percent for those who purchased coverage in the federal marketplace. However, a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., issued a ruling a few hours after the D.C. court upholding the Internal Revenue Service rule that permitted subsidies in the federal marketplace. Officials in Kansas and Missouri decided against establishing state-based marketplaces. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback blocked Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger’s efforts to create one, forcing and her to return a $31.5 million federal grant in the process.

www.clarionledger.com... more info

In statements on Tuesday both Bryant and Reeves expressed hope the D.C. ruling will hamstring the ACA. Bryant said: "As I have long said, I believe the IRS violated the law when it authorized massive taxpayer funded subsidies in the 36 states that declined to establish Obamacare exchanges, thereby triggering unwarranted taxes and mandates on both individuals and employers. Today's ruling is another step in dismantling Obamacare and returning the control of individual health care to the people." Reeves said: "Once again, the work of Obama, Pelosi and Reid is struck down in court. Time and again, the courts continue to find the flaws and disregard for the Constitution in Obamacare."

guess the supremes get to make another ruling

a reply to: butcherguy
I just found a great article that covers all of the rewrites of the law, to date. Two of them, by the Supreme Court, which are also being challenged, as the SC has no business writing, nor rewriting laws.

www.galen.org...

So far, 42 changes as of July 18, 2014. Only a small number actually passed by Congress, and signed off by Obama.

Interestingly, where Republicans get the accusations and blame for "wanting to defund Medicare", Democrats in the Demeocratically controlled Senate, and Obama, have actually DONE it, and not a peep? Not a squeal? Yet, still point the accusatory finger at Republicans over "wants"? Yet, here we have actual cuts and defunding, frkm Dems, and nothing?

Interstingly, it was the SC illegal rewrite of the law that actually made it voluntary, meaning, no one can be fined. That is, once they called it a "tax".

Wasn't it Harry Reid himself, who slipped up by saying, "Taxes are voluntary"? Could this be what he was referring to?

42. The individual mandate made a tax: The court determined
that violating the mandate that Americans must purchase
government-approved health insurance would only result in
individuals’ paying a “tax,” making it, legally speaking, optional
for people to comply.

And, one of those that were bribed to vote for the ACA had her bribe taken back. Which is rich, in itself:

36. Less cash for Louisiana: One of the tricks used to get
Obamacare through the Senate was the special “Louisiana
Purchase” deal for the state’s Democratic senator, Mary
Landrieu. Congress saved another $670 million by rescinding
additional funds from this bargain. (July 6, 2012)

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.

This statement is so outrageous. I happen to personally know someone with no insurance and she had to go to the Emergency Room. She told them she had no insurance and no income and all she had to do was answer a few questions (took her about 5-10 minutes) and she was given FREE care. She didn't pay a dime coz she didn't have any money and they didn't threaten her or refuse her care like you want to imply. Your whole statement is just a trolling lie.