Supreme Court rules in favor of Obamacare in King v. Burwell

a reply to: beezzer

??? who are being force to buy the insurance so that the older people can afford theirs???

yep makes a ton of sense...
I yearn for the days of country doctors trading chickens for care!

a reply to: dawnstar

"Being forced" is the correct term.

It's now a tax that you have to pay if you are alive.

a reply to: kruphix

So you'll not be complaining if an all Republican Administration and Congress get into power and start enforcing laws based on their perceived intent instead of the wording of the law?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: dawnstar

"Being forced" is the correct term.

It's now a tax that you have to pay if you are alive.

Which is exactly what I'm doing. And next year the fine will be even higher. Sigh...

a reply to: XTexan

well, I am pretty sure their perceived intent wasn't to tank the healthcare system when they wrote the law (or maybe it was, who knows) and that's what ruling against the administration would have done, so no, they didn't...

originally posted by: dawnstar
I hate to tell them this, but...
wasn't the original intent that the state have the exchanges and that there'd be a subsidy for those who couldn't afford the coverage with the state paying for a portion of the cost or something like that , but then the supreme court stepped in and said that it wasn't constitutional for the federal gov't to force the states to have these exchanges?
but oh....we had to pass it before we can see what's in it!!!
ya and now we got a mish mash bill that still doesn't cover everyone, nor provide affordable care.

how many more lawsuits are there for the court to rule on from this bill?

No, that isn't at all what happened.

Every State needs to have an exchange set up...they can either do it themselves, or opt not to and have the federal government do it. Some genius Republican governors decided to protest the overreach of the Federal government in their eyes, they would refuse to set up their own State exchange...and thus handing all the power of decision making for the exchanges in their State to the Federal government. So in essence, they protested Federal government overreach by handing the Federal government more power.

Now, how it effects this case is that the language in the bill stated people who bought insurance in the "State exchanges" were qualified for subsidies. This lawsuit is CLAIMING that since it said "state exchanges" and some of these exchanges in certain states were run by the Federal government, then they didn't qualify. However, those are STILL that STATES exchange system...so really what this lawsuit was about was semantics...not intent.

It's just another failed tantrum by Conservatives trying to protest something they lost years ago.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: jimmyx
so, everyone of you are pissed that low paid people get affordable coverage?....yeah, the horror!

Nope.

I'm just pissed that I am forced to pay for it.

Had the SCOTUS ruled the other way, you would still "be paying for it." The only thing you would have accomplished is to deny the citizens of your state from partaking in the benefits that you are all paying for. How is that a "win" for anybody?

In other words, tax relief for non-participating states was never part of this decision.

This is what happens when "Single-Payer" and/or "Medicare For All" representatives are denied a seat at the table. You end up with taxpayers subsidizing "for profit" healthcare insurance companies.

You want to fix this? Then yourself and the rest of the conservative movement should abandon your obstructionist posture and try doing something constructive for a change.

Something like writing your congressional representatives to demand a "not-for-profit" public option like "Single-Payer" or "Medicare-For-All."

I for one, (while not a fan of the private, "for-profit" healthcare insurance industry) am happy with this SCOTUS decision.

I believe that in the long run, it will move us closer to fixing the ACA and providing truly universal healthcare for all Americans on a not-for-profit basis.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: Profusion

So your big plan for Republicans is to have them win the Presidential election...and then effectively strip health insurance from thousands or millions of people and leave them with no other way to get health insurance.

Sounds just like something Republicans would think is a winning strategy, even though it is batcrap crazy and will never work.

So you are against any politician(s) enacting a law that would result in millions losing their health insurance?

Ok, let's play that game.

You use the Conservative talking point of "Obamacare lost millions of people their health insurance".

And I'll use actual real life data that shows that uninsured rates have plummeted since the ACA has gone live.
Study: kff.org...
Analysis of Study: wallethub.com...

But go ahead...keep using the talking points with no real data to back them up.

a reply to: kruphix

You have that backwards.

The Second is clear for anyone without an agenda.

It's the people that want to get rid of the amendment that read "intent" into the wording.

A National Guard is an organized armed force, the populace banded together in common defense is a militia.

originally posted by: XTexan
a reply to: kruphix

So you'll not be complaining if an all Republican Administration and Congress get into power and start enforcing laws based on their perceived intent instead of the wording of the law?

This isn't a new game, administrations attempt to enforce laws how they interpret them all the time...and then SCOTUS rules if that interpretation is Constitutional.

I may not like their interpretation, but if the SCOTUS says it is currently Constitutional...then I am not going to sit on the internet and cry about it.

originally posted by: beezzer
Just everyone shut up and obey.

Freedom Act, TPP, upholding Obamacare. . .

Nothing more than prison-rape wrapped up in a flag!

"shhhhhhhhh. . . . .

It'll go so much easier if you don't fight it. . . ssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. . . . "

Mamma said "lock that ass!"

a reply to: kruphix

Any information on how much the average deductible is? I don't know, just asking... I used to have a so called "cadillac plan" with a 3500 deductible. The year after the ACA went into effect the price doubled for that plan and I was forced to move to a plan with a 10K deductible. Its useless to me just as I'm sure the crappy plans on the exchanges are useless to people earning far less than I do.

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: kruphix

You have that backwards.

The Second is clear for anyone without an agenda.

It's the people that want to get rid of the amendment that read "intent" into the wording.

A National Guard is an organized armed force, the populace banded together in common defense is a militia.

Except, the facts state otherwise. The National Guard IS the United States militia...no matter how much you want to deny it.

en.wikipedia.org...

Local militias were formed from the earliest English colonization of the Americas in 1607. The first colony-wide militia was formed by Massachusetts in 1636 by merging small older local units, and several National Guard units can be traced back to this militia. The various colonial militias became state militias when the United States became independent. The title "National Guard" was used from 1824 by some New York State militia units, named after the French National Guard in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette. "National Guard" became a standard nationwide militia title in 1903, and specifically indicated reserve forces under mixed state and federal control from 1933.

And the 2nd Amendment clearly ties the necessity of a "well regulated militia" with the "right to bear arms". Now tell me...how well regulated is farmer joe hoarding a small arsenal of guns inside his barn?

What is it you recognise less, that everybody is taken care off? In honesty, as a swede I'm f***** disgusted by your ideals. Let's turn it around, in nature most of you would die if it wasn't for ideals of Camelot. I vote that we kill everyone who cannot provide for themselves

All that needs to be done is to get rid of the individual mandate. Then the whole thing collapses.


Then you have the GOP claiming they will continue to fight for a repeal and replacement. Yet every time they've been in a posisiton to be rid of it, they caved... each and every time they caved.

originally posted by: XTexan
a reply to: kruphix

I think health insurance should be banned. All it does is drive up costs. A doctor won't charge $150 to check for a sore throat if he knows no one can pay it.

Best comment of the day IMO!

I firmly believe Insurance, government and administrative costs force people to have Insurance in the first place.

I also firmly believe laws like Sherman & Clayton acts should apply to the entire medical industry and would constitute true reform in stead of the "Insurance, hospital corp, pharma" protection act now in place aka ACA.

If those laws applied then costs would drop up to 80% and most of us would require no insurance except for catastrophic care.

As stands now the law of exponentials says SCOTUS just confirmed and endorsed eventual national economic suicide.

a reply to: kruphix

Former military are considered to be the unorganized militia so....there's that. The "reserve militia" is every able bodied male between 17 and 45, so there's that too.

The national guard is NOT "the militia of the United States." The national guard belongs to the states. The National Guard of the United States is separate.

a reply to: EternalSolace

To me this is where the lobby money has the appearances of overriding the peoples will.

I am forming an opinion of voting for the one candidate who is NOT dependent on others money for the next presidential election for this reason alone.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
I've said it before...I'll say it AGAIN. The only way to stop the downward slide into full Communism is to REVOLT. How many of you are out there picketing, protesting, and gathering support from the rest of the dwindling middle class to fight this raping of your pocketbook and freedoms???

Anyone???

Okay then, if no one wants to put themselves on the line...then sit back and wait for your number in the bread line.

Obamacare is just the start.

An internet revolutionary...I love you guys.

So...how about you take your own advice and be the first person to REVOLT??? Or are you just going to bad mouth everyone else who doesn't do what you are telling them to do?

Now...let's hear all your excuses why you can't do what you are calling others out for not doing.

Well, here's the rub...I can afford my healthcare, cars, homes, vacations, etc. And if the country goes to hell in a handbasket, I can simply go overseas and avoid the unpleasantness. So my lifestyle is not threatened by these power grabs.

That being said...I DO have a sense of duty to the constitution and the principles this country was founded on. I *DO* fight for this country and, in the process, put my businesses and family at risk. But at some point, you need to stop trying to feebly paddle away and simply prepare for the tidal wave that is about to engulf you.

I stand for what's right, even when I stand alone. But I'm realistic enough to know that standing alone won't equate to change. So stop making excuses for why YOU ignore what needs to be done and do something about it.

originally posted by: CIAGypsy

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
I've said it before...I'll say it AGAIN. The only way to stop the downward slide into full Communism is to REVOLT. How many of you are out there picketing, protesting, and gathering support from the rest of the dwindling middle class to fight this raping of your pocketbook and freedoms???

Anyone???

Okay then, if no one wants to put themselves on the line...then sit back and wait for your number in the bread line.

Obamacare is just the start.

An internet revolutionary...I love you guys.

So...how about you take your own advice and be the first person to REVOLT??? Or are you just going to bad mouth everyone else who doesn't do what you are telling them to do?

Now...let's hear all your excuses why you can't do what you are calling others out for not doing.

Well, here's the rub...I can afford my healthcare, cars, homes, vacations, etc. And if the country goes to hell in a handbasket, I can simply go overseas and avoid the unpleasantness. So my lifestyle is not threatened by these power grabs.

That being said...I DO have a sense of duty to the constitution and the principles this country was founded on. I *DO* fight for this country and, in the process, put my businesses and family at risk. But at some point, you need to stop trying to feebly paddle away and simply prepare for the tidal wave that is about to engulf you.

I stand for what's right, even when I stand alone. But I'm realistic enough to know that standing alone won't equate to change. So stop making excuses for why YOU ignore what needs to be done and do something about it.

Here's the thing...I don't think anything needs to be done...you are the one wanting to entice others to REVOLT against the government.

I have no excuses, because I don't think revolution is necessary. I just find it funny how you say REVOLT is the only answer and are criticizing others for not acting while you are admitting not acting yourself because your lifestyle is too plush for you to endanger what you have.

So is the way of every internet revolutionary...all talk...all criticism for others you call out as cowards for not acting...all the while you just sit there yourself and do nothing.