Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If only there was some simple system of providing free at the point of use healthcare that cut out employers refusing to fund certain healthcare because invisible friends told them it was bad, states trying to underfund things, insurance companies sucking wealth out of the system and that everyone contributes towards...

We don't want your dirty logic round here! This is the Internet!

 -Shrike- wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If only there was some simple system of providing free at the point of use healthcare that cut out employers refusing to fund certain healthcare because invisible friends told them it was bad, states trying to underfund things, insurance companies sucking wealth out of the system and that everyone contributes towards...

We don't want your dirty logic round here! This is the Internet!

That smells suspiciously like Socialism and it stinks!

 Easy E wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
If only there was some simple system of providing free at the point of use healthcare that cut out employers refusing to fund certain healthcare because invisible friends told them it was bad, states trying to underfund things, insurance companies sucking wealth out of the system and that everyone contributes towards...

We don't want your dirty logic round here! This is the Internet!

That smells suspiciously like Socialism and it stinks!

^ this guy gets it.

 dogma wrote:
Yep, especially given that the Judicial Branch is meant to be independent; he says laughing maniacally.

You seen the SC approval ratings? Lowest in recorded history.

^the PPACA had something to do with it.

Oh... and Citizen United too.

 whembly wrote:
^the PPACA had something to do with it.

Oh... and Citizen United too.

They'd be the recent causes, but there's a long term decline from '91 picked up by that graph, so it's more than just a few decisions driving it.

Funnily enough, I first went to the wrong place looking for that graph, and found a site from last year's graph. The number was much higher of course, and there was more detail on the breakdown as it was Gallup's own poll - and what drove the number higher was that while Republicans didn't like the court, Liberals were still more in favour than against. That's because that survey was in the wake of Individual Mandate, but before Hobby Lobby Now after Hobby Lobby Liberals don't like the court either, while Republicans still haven't forgiven it despite Hobby Lobby.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
^the PPACA had something to do with it.

Oh... and Citizen United too.

They'd be the recent causes, but there's a long term decline from '91 picked up by that graph, so it's more than just a few decisions driving it.

Funnily enough, I first went to the wrong place looking for that graph, and found a site from last year's graph. The number was much higher of course, and there was more detail on the breakdown as it was Gallup's own poll - and what drove the number higher was that while Republicans didn't like the court, Liberals were still more in favour than against. That's because that survey was in the wake of Individual Mandate, but before Hobby Lobby Now after Hobby Lobby Liberals don't like the court either, while Republicans still haven't forgiven it despite Hobby Lobby.

Good read.

The sad thing, it shouldn't matter what the public think of the SC. "Shouldn't" is the operative word...eh?

Also, so this:


Gruber, one of the law’s architects as a consultant, stated:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

Although... earlier this week on MSNBC, he claims it's a typo. Maybe his notes on drafting this law was lost on Lerner's harddrive.

In other words... Halbig of a smoking gun is this?

BOOM!

It's not often that a federal district court to openly chiding circuit court judges for their ruling.

All this does is to insure that there's a split in the lower courts (there were some liberal judges who ruled that the administrative law-making was a-ok with them), thus dramatically increasing the odds that the Supreme Court will have to rule on the matter.

 whembly wrote:
BOOM!

It's not often that a federal district court to openly chiding circuit court judges for their ruling.

All this does is to insure that there's a split in the lower courts (there were some liberal judges who ruled that the administrative law-making was a-ok with them), thus dramatically increasing the odds that the Supreme Court will have to rule on the matter.

In English, please? I really attempted to read though that link, but alas... I'm no lawyer, and don't speak that brand of gibberish.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:
BOOM!

It's not often that a federal district court to openly chiding circuit court judges for their ruling.

All this does is to insure that there's a split in the lower courts (there were some liberal judges who ruled that the administrative law-making was a-ok with them), thus dramatically increasing the odds that the Supreme Court will have to rule on the matter.

In English, please? I really attempted to read though that link, but alas... I'm no lawyer, and don't speak that brand of gibberish.

This concerns the IRS administratively granting those who enroll into the ACA in the federal exchanges the same subsidies that are granted to those who enroll in the state exchanges.

The court basically said the ACA only authorizes subsidies to the State Exchange.

What's jarring here is that this judge in this case takes time to note and be openly be critical of the Judge's dissent in Halbig (the DC circuit case in which the majority found similarly that the IRS had acted lawlessly).

The judge here chides the upper court's dissent for assuming the posture of a political advocate.


I'm sure it happened before, but I can't think of the last time this occured on a case of this magnititude.

EDIT: here's some blurbs from that ruling:

This is a case of statutory interpretation. "The text is what it is, no matter which side benefits." Such a case (even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal) does not "gut" or "destroy" anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act as written.

Congress is free to amend the ACA to provide for tax credits in both state and federal exchanges, if that is the legislative will. As the Act presently stands, "vague notions of a statute's 'basic purpose' are nonetheless inadequate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issue under consideration. It is a "core administrative-law principle that an agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate."

"If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform to its intent."

How about we do the intelligent thing: abort the ACA like an unwanted fetus and start over on something more reasonable and realistic which doesnt just help the insurance industry increase their profits?

chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing: abort the ACA like an unwanted fetus and start over on something more reasonable and realistic which doesnt just help the insurance industry increase their profits?

Agreed.

The likelyhood of that happening?

Eh... depends on the makeup of Congress and who's at the helm in the WH in 2016.

chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing: abort the ACA like an unwanted fetus and start over on something more reasonable and realistic which doesnt just help the insurance industry increase their profits?

I know. Take the Canadian law, Strike out all the unneccessary "u"s, "Canada" on the covere page and insert "America Hurr!"
Also probably should do a special check for "Her Majesty" they like to throw those in like popcorn. I seen it.

chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing

I think you have forgotten we are talking about the US Congress.

In laymen terms... if the plantiff is successful, the ACA subsidies will halt in states that chose NOT to implement their own exchange... in addition, it would also end the employer mandate in any state that did not establish its own healthcare exchange. (that's what this Nebraska case emphazed).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing

I think you have forgotten we are talking about the US Congress.

Oh snap!

 whembly wrote:
...in addition, it would also end the employer mandate in any state that did not establish its own healthcare exchange. (that's what this Nebraska case emphazed).

Eh, not necessarily. It would end the employer mandate for any employer that happens to also be a State, or government entity which derives its authority from a State, but not necessarily for any employer.

 Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing: abort the ACA like an unwanted fetus and start over on something more reasonable and realistic which doesnt just help the insurance industry increase their profits?

I know. Take the Canadian law, Strike out all the unneccessary "u"s, "Canada" on the covere page and insert "America Hurr!"
Also probably should do a special check for "Her Majesty" they like to throw those in like popcorn. I seen it.

yup ....

considering how easy it would have been to simply copy a working system, its just sad that this administrations did this so poorly.

its like a kid in school taking a geology test when the teacher left the big map down for all to see... and still failing.

 easysauce wrote:

considering how easy it would have been to simply copy a working system...

Yeah, real easy. That's why so many words were written regarding the goods and evils of a single payer system, the ease of passing a law creating one.

 easysauce wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing: abort the ACA like an unwanted fetus and start over on something more reasonable and realistic which doesnt just help the insurance industry increase their profits?

I know. Take the Canadian law, Strike out all the unneccessary "u"s, "Canada" on the covere page and insert "America Hurr!"
Also probably should do a special check for "Her Majesty" they like to throw those in like popcorn. I seen it.

yup ....

considering how easy it would have been to simply copy a working system, its just sad that this administrations did this so poorly.

its like a kid in school taking a geology test when the teacher left the big map down for all to see... and still failing.

Actually, we do have the existing system. Called "Medicare".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...in addition, it would also end the employer mandate in any state that did not establish its own healthcare exchange. (that's what this Nebraska case emphazed).

Eh, not necessarily. It would end the employer mandate for any employer that happens to also be a State, or government entity which derives its authority from a State, but not necessarily for any employer.

That's what the plantiff is trying to clarify. In that court, it's any employer in a state who chose NOT to implement the exchange.

But, who the knows.

 whembly wrote:

Actually, we do have the existing system. Called "Medicare".

Medicare is not universal.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Actually, we do have the existing system. Called "Medicare".

Medicare is not universal.

It is if:

-Most people 65 and older.
-People younger than 65 who have certain disabilities and illnesses.
-People of any age with kidney failure that requires dialysis or a kidney transplant.

If you wanted something close to what Canada/UK has, just expand Medicare and change the eligibility to encompass everyone. (of course, change the tax laws / expand Medicare Administration at the same time).

 whembly wrote:

That's what the plantiff is trying to clarify. In that court, it's any employer in a state who chose NOT to implement the exchange.

The plaintiff is trying to clarify that it is, in fact, a State?

chaos0xomega wrote:
How about we do the intelligent thing: abort the ACA like an unwanted fetus and start over on something more reasonable and realistic which doesnt just help the insurance industry increase their profits?

You mean the same insurance industry that fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the ACA from passing and for it to be repealed?

It may have originally done exactly what they wanted, but it's such a terribly written law, even the people who wanted what it does were against it.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's what the plantiff is trying to clarify. In that court, it's any employer in a state who chose NOT to implement the exchange.

The plaintiff is trying to clarify that it is, in fact, a State?

I think we're crossing the streams here...

The employer mandate is linked to the carrot. Which is the subsidies the Feds provides if the States operated their own exchange.

The IRS waved some administrative wand that granted the same subsidies to the Federal exchange.

Therefore, if the plantiff prevails all the way to the SC, it would not only bring the ACA subsidies to a halt in most states, but it would also end the employer mandate in any state that did not establish its own healthcare exchange.

 whembly wrote:

-Most people 65 and older.

By using the word "most" you admitted that Medicare is not universal. Then of course there is the "...65 and older." thing which necessarily means that the program does not apply to people under the age of 65, rendering it not universal.

 whembly wrote:

If you wanted something close to what Canada/UK has, just expand Medicare and change the eligibility to encompass everyone. (of course, change the tax laws / expand Medicare Administration at the same time).

That was attempted, and it failed the popular and Congressional tests.

 whembly wrote:

The employer mandate is linked to the carrot. Which is the subsidies the Feds provides if the States operated their own exchange.

And that is completely irrelvant to the argument I'm making.

 whembly wrote:

Therefore, if the plantiff prevails all the way to the SC, it would not only bring the ACA subsidies to a halt in most states, but it would also end the employer mandate in any state that did not establish its own healthcare exchange.

Okay, but the obvious counter is that States constitute a special class of employers due to separate sovereignty, something the the plaintiffs own argument (and the resultant decision) turns on. As such, a ruling regarding a State, as an employer, does not necessarily apply to employers that are not also States.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

-Most people 65 and older.

By using the word "most" you admitted that Medicare is not universal. Then of course there is the "...65 and older." thing which necessarily means that the program does not apply to people under the age of 65, rendering it not universal.

Reading is hard isn't dogma?

 whembly wrote:

If you wanted something close to what Canada/UK has, just expand Medicare and change the eligibility to encompass everyone. (of course, change the tax laws / expand Medicare Administration at the same time).

That was attempted, and it failed the popular and Congressional tests.

Yep. In turn, Democrats shoved the PPACA down our throats.*

*in whembly's opinion.

 whembly wrote:

The employer mandate is linked to the carrot. Which is the subsidies the Feds provides if the States operated their own exchange.

And that is completely irrelvant to the argument I'm making.

 whembly wrote:

Therefore, if the plantiff prevails all the way to the SC, it would not only bring the ACA subsidies to a halt in most states, but it would also end the employer mandate in any state that did not establish its own healthcare exchange.

Okay, but the obvious counter is that States constitute a special class of employers due to separate sovereignty, something the the plaintiffs own argument (and the resultant decision) turns on. As such, a ruling regarding a State, as an employer, does not necessarily apply to employers that are not also States.

I see what you're saying. But, I don't think that's what they're saying...

One step closer to the collapse of everything we hold dear in life. Soon a cup of coffee will cost .22LR....Breakfest a .556......steak dinner two 7.62mm

 Jihadin wrote:
One step closer to the collapse of everything we hold dear in life. Soon a cup of coffee will cost .22LR....Breakfest a .556......steak dinner two 7.62mm

Would that be a Prime or Choice steak? Or will I have to toss in an extra 7.62 to get the Prime?

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
One step closer to the collapse of everything we hold dear in life. Soon a cup of coffee will cost .22LR....Breakfest a .556......steak dinner two 7.62mm

Would that be a Prime or Choice steak? Or will I have to toss in an extra 7.62 to get the Prime?

Be awhile before we polish our skills in a barter system......what if someone throws in a chainsaw chain recently sharpen for two bake potato's loaded and a cold beer.....

 whembly wrote:

Reading is hard isn't dogma?

You stated that healthcare is universal for most people that are 65 and older. Your use of the word "most" necessarily indicates that healthcare is not universal for that group. Something cannot be universal for most of anything.

 whembly wrote:

I see what you're saying. But, I don't think that's what they're saying...

That's why I classified the argument I made as a counter argument.