Federal judge rules Obamacare is being funded unconstitutionally

a reply to: Slanter

I'm hoping you can clear all this up by showing us where in the ACA the money is automatically appropriated and who has the legal authority.

And, which Congressional Bill(s) appear to defund this particular area.

TIA.

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
good. terrible legislation. it was unconstitutional from the start. the "taxes" are fees.

I have never been taxed for something I don't own, the entire thing is absurd

Holy crap stick batman. I think I found something I agree with you on. Terrible. When my wife and I did our taxes, the person kept showing us the penalty we would have to pay if we didn't have our own coverage. She made it a point for us to know the amount.
Now that we have a child, that penalty would go up.
We have a friend who pays the penalty, since it's cheaper for him. And it's a big middle finger to the administration for him.

a reply to: ketsuko

Actually, it is the law now from my understanding. "the wall shall be built" is what is in the law. But the catch is there's a beuracrat that is built into the law as well that gets to say whether or not if it is justified to build the wall... Sorry I don't have the time to find this right now. This person is like one of those agencies that we hate, BLM,EPA etc.

Graffik

a reply to: xuenchen

You know, the intent is already destroyed. To give medical care to all no matter your checking account. You guys won that. I don't know why you keep kicking a dead horse.

originally posted by: Slanter
Huh. So Congress refuses to fund obamacare and are irate that he funded it through other channels. I get that congress is an important part of the checks-and-balances process of our government, but they'd seem more credible if they hadn't spent the past few years trying to block everything they can. Its not like this was something that was unilaterally decided by Obama, this was voted on by the senate and approved by a majority vote.

I'd take this more seriously if congress hadn't been so blatantly contrarian recently. I'm guessing this'll go nowhere, simply because their refusal to fund the affordable care act could be argued as illegal itself.

That's pretty much how I see it, it's also yet another example why two party systems don't work in the common interest.

But it seems to me to be pretty moot as far as welfare spending is concerned.
The American government is legally obliged to pay welfare to those who are entitled, congress has no power to disenfranchise the people of any entitlements, all part of Franklin D. Roosevelt's new deal, passed into law by congress and executive order.
entitlements are institutionally detached from Congress's ordinary legislative routine and rhythm.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Take a good look at the VA Health system. If that doesn't change your mind, then there isn't much of a mind there to change. A National Health system will be the VA on steroids.

It will be 2 years before the final decision is made, and it will be by the Supreme Court. It will follow the same route as the first challenge did regarding the APTC/Subsidies. We know how that turned out in June of 2012.

If Trump or Bernie are elected, this case will go away on it's own, right after ObamaCare is permanently ditched.

a reply to: syrinx high priest

You don't pay income tax? You pay taxes on things you don't own every single paycheck.

a reply to: xuenchen

Do you know law? Are you qualified to gage the correctness of his answer? Are you just throwing down a challenge only a lawyer could answer.?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Do you know law? Are you qualified to gage the correctness of his answer? Are you just throwing down a challenge only a lawyer could answer.?

I was hoping you could answer.

a reply to: xuenchen

Where have you been.? This has been nothing but a struggle between republicans and democrats on capitol hill since its inception. The fact that the suit was brought by house republicans looking to repeal the entire thing suggests pandering to the right.
White house spokesman Josh Earnest said it's an unprecedented use of the courts to resolve a political dispute.
www.wsj.com...

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes it should concern you. Without the subsidies the wealthy will pay more for insurance and the extremely poor will simply go without. I guess that's ok for some people who don't care about anything but their own pockets.

I think Obama is having a big fit right now that his
precious "Obamacare" is being questioned, and he is
also upset that Trump is gaining what seems an ustoppable
momentum... and that is why he is throwing all of these
junk EO's about bathrooms and such at the country.

a reply to: pirhanna

Too bad this thread isn't about that. It's about payment to insurance companies so that the very poor can get insurance coverage. Start another thread about how you're against the ACA. But this thread is about a court decision to cut the poor completely out of the question. The underemployed who work for small business that don't have to offer health insurance can get insurance through the exchange at a reduced rate because of the subsidies. Without it they are simply uninsured. No health care. No doctor visits, no preventative care. Just let them suffer the way the poor always has. Who really cares right?

a reply to: burntheships

Not a thread about the Trumptard either. Don't you have enough threads to worship the Orange one in?

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm looking but since your article doesn't say what laws she is sighting I can't rebut. Hey maybe you can find that then I can find a rebuttal.

a reply to: Sillyolme

It is certainly part and parcel of the entire subject.

Obamacare is crumbling, even without the findings that it is
unconstitutional. What does that tell you?

One of the nations largest healthcare insurers has pulled
out of Obamacare. Do you understand the term "viable"?

I'll ignore your political baiting so...no reply about Trump
from me, I did not even mention his name.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Really? Bernie is going to do that? How? With the same congress that halted Obama at every turn? Better get your friends to vote in a democrat house and Senate then otherwise Bernie would be in the same position as Obama. Without his balls to push through what he knows is right and fair.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Well do some work and find the court decision and tell us what parts are "pandering".

a reply to: Sillyolme

No, this thread is about how the money to pay on the bill is not there, so Obama took it away from other parts of the budget.

That is not Constitutional. He does not have that power. Only Congress has that power by law. If the funding is a problem, Obama needs to go to Congress to get them to assign funding to the parts of Obamacare that need it if there isn't enough. He cannot simply say, "Hey, education, I think you deserve funding, but I think this is more worthy, so Imma gonna take this money from you and give it to Obamacare right now. K thanx, bye!"

Or whatever else he pulled money from.

If we allow him to get away with that, then there is chaos in the budget. What happens when the area he pulls money from experiences a shortfall down the road? Does he then arbitrarily pull money from somewhere else? It creates a domino effect, and he does not have the authority to do it on a whim for just this reason.