Obamacare ruling

12 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803
Obamacare ruling

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

I am waiting at a doctor's appointment and can not post the whole article. Basically a federal court ruled that Federal subsidies for the A A are illegal.

Do you agree or disagree with the decision? Do you think the decision will be upheld? If it is upheld, what do you think it will mean for ACA?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

What i see is a bunch of whiney employers who don't like their new taxes and know damn well how the law was meant to work but are being petty and trying to undermine the whole thing due to poor wording, just because they can.

I think its pathetic and shameful and its all I really have to say about it.

As far as if this will actually stick? I think its hard to say at this point. It might or it might not.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

I see a law that was poorly written from the start and because the Democrats were about to lose their super majority they went ahead and passed something that they knew was flawed and when this was confirmed they then just tried to bend the law to say what they wanted it to say. Hopefully this will be the last straw and they will be able to throw it out and pass something that will work.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I do think that the problems that are happening now are a result of the mentally "You have to pass it to know what is in it". The law was rushed through and as a result mistakes we made. It would be the equivalent of not reading someone their Miranda rights. It does not matter the intent, it would matter what was actually said.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do think that the problems that are happening now are a result of the mentally "You have to pass it to know what is in it". The law was rushed through and as a result mistakes we made. It would be the equivalent of not reading someone their Miranda rights. It does not matter the intent, it would matter what was actually said.

Can you explain this further?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

Perhaps it's off topic, but one of my pet peeves right now is how gun control and the ACA issues go hand in hand. I can't count how many times I have heard the positition that many of the recent tragedies and irresponsible gun owners are mentally ill. And it's a mental illness concern not a gun rights issue.

Okay...then why in the heck can't those who make that claim acknowledge that under the ACA mental health care must be covered? I mean, can we really have it both ways? Repeal Obamacare so we can go back to denying the mentally ill access to treatment? Wouldn't access to mental health care actually work the way gun rights activists want it to? Say a patient sees a psychiatrist for schizophrenia. The psychiatrist reports the patient as a threat thus allowing his gun rights to be revoked. Isn't that the better option than allowing an untreated schizophrenic the right to own guns!

I just get the impression (mainly from the shares on my Facebook) that because people don't agree with Obamacare on principle, they don't want to follow any if it.

When HR 1 passed, I disagreed with a lot of it. As it played out, there were many aspects that were good and I directly and indirectly benefited tremendously. The fact that Bush signed it into law, doesn't deminish the good that came of it.

Likewise, Obama's name on something shouldn't negate the good.

Sometimes things take 20 or 30 years to play out tho find out what the good and the bad are.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 day ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

As I said at the time, it was better to pass a slightly flawed healthcare bill that at least tried to start making the changes needed in this country than to sit on our thumbs and do nothing as was done since Clinton left office. ITA with Kim that this is a bunch of whiny employers who just want to keep more & more of their record profits instead of doing what is right, and that's take care of all Americans.

From what I've seen, the court in D.C. didn't rule that *all* subsidies are illegal, only the ones in states that did not set up their own insurance markets. My initial gut reaction is to just let those (mostly-red) states wipe out subsidies and incur the wrath of their citizenry come voting time and shopping time. But that's not the right thing to do, and it's probably unnecessary since at least one appeals court still has some brains. I'm bolstered by the court in Virginia which found that the IRS correctly interpreted the will of Congress when it issued regulations allowing consumers in all 50 states to purchase subsidized coverage.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Can you explain this further?

What I meant was when an officer does not take the time to properly read someone their rights it keep jepordizes the whole arrest. In the same way, because the people making the ACA law did not take the time to do it properly, it is going to jeopardize the whole law.

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Perhaps it's off topic, but one of my pet peeves right now is how gun control and the ACA issues go hand in hand. I can't count how many times I have heard the positition that many of the recent tragedies and irresponsible gun owners are mentally ill. And it's a mental illness concern not a gun rights issue.

Okay...then why in the heck can't those who make that claim acknowledge that under the ACA mental health care must be covered? I mean, can we really have it both ways? Repeal Obamacare so we can go back to denying the mentally ill access to treatment? Wouldn't access to mental health care actually work the way gun rights activists want it to? Say a patient sees a psychiatrist for schizophrenia. The psychiatrist reports the patient as a threat thus allowing his gun rights to be revoked. Isn't that the better option than allowing an untreated schizophrenic the right to own guns!

I just get the impression (mainly from the shares on my Facebook) that because people don't agree with Obamacare on principle, they don't want to follow any if it.

When HR 1 passed, I disagreed with a lot of it. As it played out, there were many aspects that were good and I directly and indirectly benefited tremendously. The fact that Bush signed it into law, doesn't deminish the good that came of it.

Likewise, Obama's name on something shouldn't negate the good.

Sometimes things take 20 or 30 years to play out tho find out what the good and the bad are.

I do not know of anyone that believes that there is not one single positive quality in Obamacare. Most feel that the bad outweighs the good and that the cost in both money and freedom is too high.

"Spacers" wrote:

As I said at the time, it was better to pass a slightly flawed healthcare bill that at least tried to start making the changes needed in this country than to sit on our thumbs and do nothing as was done since Clinton left office. ITA with Kim that this is a bunch of whiny employers who just want to keep more & more of their record profits instead of doing what is right, and that's take care of all Americans.

From what I've seen, the court in D.C. didn't rule that *all* subsidies are illegal, only the ones in states that did not set up their own insurance markets. My initial gut reaction is to just let those (mostly-red) states wipe out subsidies and incur the wrath of their citizenry come voting time and shopping time. But that's not the right thing to do, and it's probably unnecessary since at least one appeals court still has some brains. I'm bolstered by the court in Virginia which found that the IRS correctly interpreted the will of Congress when it issued regulations allowing consumers in all 50 states to purchase subsidized coverage.

Would you still feel that way if the whole law ended up being over turned due to poor wording that could have been avoided if they took the time to carefully read and proof read first?

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 day ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

The whole law is not going to be overturned. The parts that need tweaking will be tweaked, and hopefully, someday soon, we'll be on the road to actually providing real healthcare to all Americans, not just overly-expensive insurance to some and better-than-nothing to others.

Think about the U.S. Constitution. The drafters knew they were producing a flawed document, partly because they were doing it in haste to get the country up & running and partly because they knew they couldn't foresee how things might be in the future, and that's precisely why the checks & balances of our government system are so important. Isn't that kind of the American Way: do things first, and then figure out the details later?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Spacers" wrote:

Isn't that kind of the American Way: do things first, and then figure out the details later?

Is this serious or sarcastic?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 1 day ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

The part that bugs me about this is that everyone knows the law was meant to cover this. Someone look me in the eye and try to tell me it makes sense that they meant for it not to. The intent is obvious.

So I really don't look at anyone thats trying to save their business money by exploiting the vague wording with integrity.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 1 day ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"KimPossible" wrote:

The part that bugs me about this is that everyone knows the law was meant to cover this. Someone look me in the eye and try to tell me it makes sense that they meant for it not to. The intent is obvious.

So I really don't look at anyone thats trying to save their business money by exploiting the vague wording with integrity.

Agreed. I also don't see how they can justify spending millions of dollars on lawyers fighting this, instead of spending a fraction of that amount of money providing healthcare to their employees.