Thread Rating:
11-07-2014, 10:50 PM
Incredibly, only 3 days after the historic mid terms (still smiling BTW), the Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments regarding the legality of federal ObamaCare subsidies.
EXCERPT---
"The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to the subsidies that are a linchpin of President Barack Obamaâs health-care overhaul, accepting a case that suddenly puts the law under a new legal cloud.
Two years after upholding much of the law by a single vote, the justices today said they will hear a Republican-backed appeal targeting tax credits that have helped more than 4 million people afford insurance."
Read http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamaca...z3IPxAJrqP
But before opponents of the law start getting too excited, the question begs to be asked. Is this a preemptive move to get the court to rule on the legality of government subsidies to fend off repeal efforts, or has the lid suddenly been lifted?
EXCERPT---
"The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to the subsidies that are a linchpin of President Barack Obamaâs health-care overhaul, accepting a case that suddenly puts the law under a new legal cloud.
Two years after upholding much of the law by a single vote, the justices today said they will hear a Republican-backed appeal targeting tax credits that have helped more than 4 million people afford insurance."
Read http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamaca...z3IPxAJrqP
But before opponents of the law start getting too excited, the question begs to be asked. Is this a preemptive move to get the court to rule on the legality of government subsidies to fend off repeal efforts, or has the lid suddenly been lifted?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
![[-]](https://bluegrassrivals.com/forum/images/lifestyle/collapse.png)
11-10-2014, 04:31 PM
I think its important to look at the issue itself, and the effects the possible rulings.
Ruling that the ACA doesn't allow subsidies at the federal level of exchanges, wouldn't really gut the law. The mandate to buy insurance would still be in effect, and likely NEVER changed at the judicial level. Stripping the subsidies from federal exchange purchases would raise the cost of insurance drastically in states that refused to participate, or otherwise opted out because of poor planning or funding. The other 99.999% of the law would remain as is.
To hear a case at the supreme court, it takes 4 justices of the 9 agreeing to do so. Ginsburg as recently as last month sided with liberals in not hearing gay marriage arguements due to the lack of conflicting rulings at the lower court levels. She has strictly followed this rule, as others have in the past. There's no reason to suspect she has changed her view in the past few days. What does this mean? It was likely the conservative bloc that decided to hear the case, which means its not a supreme court attempt to keep the law from being repealed.
With that said, I suspect the supreme court will rule that the subsidies are legal. From reading a few of the provisions in the law, it seems that the sec of hhs has the authority to step in when states don't step up. Whats interesting though about this case, is that its republican operatives and conservative groups that are pushing for the repeal of this central piece to affordability. Why is it interesting? Its basically the only part of the law that conservatives have historically held. Well, that along with the individual mandate that they challenged as well (as seen below
Suddenly, they didn't like the idea anymore.
But back to the issue of subsidies. Nearly every republican in office today favors a plan that will provide "market-based solutions". What does that mean exactly? Tax credits - aka subsidies - to pay for private insurance. So why are they opposing this idea now? It seems that it should be one of the pieces they support. My opinion is that its a radical attempt to dismantle the law, cause uproar among those who are required to buy insurance and no longer can afford it without the subsidies, and push politicians towards repealing the constitutional mandate, and ACA as a whole.
Now, don't take anything I said as support for the ACA, subsidies, or mandates. I'm strongly opposed to the law and all aspects of it. I do not believe that the government is best solution to medical care. I'm just a very objective person that refused to toe the line. I'll call crap, crap when I see it.
Another really interesting development is the medicare prescription plan (part d). Every congress has tried to pass it since the 60's. Democrats were the driving force behind it, but with notable conservatives including Ronald Reagan even suggesting it made sense. (Remember his argument: Medicare will pay $20,000 for an ulcer repair surgery, no questions asked --- but refuse to pay $20 for the medicine that would prevent it in the first place. He suggested it would save money in the long run.) Then came the GOP takeover in 2001........ and suddenly nearly every republican supported the idea, and every democrat opposed it.
Politics disgust me. But man... I'm addicted to it.
Have a great day everyone. God loves you exactly how you are..... but he refuses to leave you that way.
Ruling that the ACA doesn't allow subsidies at the federal level of exchanges, wouldn't really gut the law. The mandate to buy insurance would still be in effect, and likely NEVER changed at the judicial level. Stripping the subsidies from federal exchange purchases would raise the cost of insurance drastically in states that refused to participate, or otherwise opted out because of poor planning or funding. The other 99.999% of the law would remain as is.
To hear a case at the supreme court, it takes 4 justices of the 9 agreeing to do so. Ginsburg as recently as last month sided with liberals in not hearing gay marriage arguements due to the lack of conflicting rulings at the lower court levels. She has strictly followed this rule, as others have in the past. There's no reason to suspect she has changed her view in the past few days. What does this mean? It was likely the conservative bloc that decided to hear the case, which means its not a supreme court attempt to keep the law from being repealed.
With that said, I suspect the supreme court will rule that the subsidies are legal. From reading a few of the provisions in the law, it seems that the sec of hhs has the authority to step in when states don't step up. Whats interesting though about this case, is that its republican operatives and conservative groups that are pushing for the repeal of this central piece to affordability. Why is it interesting? Its basically the only part of the law that conservatives have historically held. Well, that along with the individual mandate that they challenged as well (as seen below
Quote:1. Rick Santorum? The Allentown Morning Call reported several times in 1994 that Santorum wanted to "require individuals to buy health insurance rather than forcing employers to pay for benefits." Santorum denies allegations that he ever supported an individual mandate.
2. President George H.W. Bush: In 1991, Mark Pauly, an adviser to the first Bush, and now a conservative health economist, came up with a Heritage-style health care proposal for the president as an alternative to the employer-based mandate that Democrats were pushing at the time.
3. Former Vice President Dan Quayle: He was down with the Heritage idea too.
4. Mitt Romney: Romneycare was Romney's signature legislative achievement as governor of Massachusetts, and it served as a model for Obamacare. During the 2012 campaign, the presidential contender had trouble deciding what his position was on Obamacare, and he deflected the blame for having conceived a similar plan; at one debate he noted that "we got the idea of an individual mandate…from [Newt Gingrich]."
5. Newt Gingrich: Though he reversed his position in May 2011, Gingrich had been a big supporter of the individual mandate since his early days in the House. In 1992 and 1993, when Republicans were looking for alternatives to Hillary Clinton's health care plan, many, including then-House minority whip Gingrich, backed the Heritage idea. (Gingrich has said that most conservatives supported an individual mandate for health insurance at the time.)
Twenty of his fellow GOPers cosponsored a 1993 health care bill which included an individual mandate and vouchers for poor people. As health scholar Avik Roy wrote at Forbes in 2012, "Given that there were 43 Republicans in the Senate of the 103rd Congress, these 20 comprised nearly half of the Republican Senate Caucus at that time." Here are those lawmakers:
6. Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas)
7. Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.)
8. Sen. Robert Bennet (R-Utah)
9. Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.)
10. Sen. George Brown (R-Colo.)
11. Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.)
12. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)
13. Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.)
14. Sen. Duncan Faircloth (R-N.C.)
15. Sen. William Cohen (R-Maine)
16. Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Wash.)
17. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
18. Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.)
19. Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-Kansas)
20. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)
21. Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.)
22. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)
23. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
24. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.)
25. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Suddenly, they didn't like the idea anymore.
But back to the issue of subsidies. Nearly every republican in office today favors a plan that will provide "market-based solutions". What does that mean exactly? Tax credits - aka subsidies - to pay for private insurance. So why are they opposing this idea now? It seems that it should be one of the pieces they support. My opinion is that its a radical attempt to dismantle the law, cause uproar among those who are required to buy insurance and no longer can afford it without the subsidies, and push politicians towards repealing the constitutional mandate, and ACA as a whole.
Now, don't take anything I said as support for the ACA, subsidies, or mandates. I'm strongly opposed to the law and all aspects of it. I do not believe that the government is best solution to medical care. I'm just a very objective person that refused to toe the line. I'll call crap, crap when I see it.
Another really interesting development is the medicare prescription plan (part d). Every congress has tried to pass it since the 60's. Democrats were the driving force behind it, but with notable conservatives including Ronald Reagan even suggesting it made sense. (Remember his argument: Medicare will pay $20,000 for an ulcer repair surgery, no questions asked --- but refuse to pay $20 for the medicine that would prevent it in the first place. He suggested it would save money in the long run.) Then came the GOP takeover in 2001........ and suddenly nearly every republican supported the idea, and every democrat opposed it.
Politics disgust me. But man... I'm addicted to it.
Have a great day everyone. God loves you exactly how you are..... but he refuses to leave you that way.
11-10-2014, 04:39 PM
One more thing... If the GOP really wants to repeal it, and gut it successfully through the courts, I'd suggest they focus on the debt, economy, and civil liberties from now until 2016, expand their majorities, and win the presidency.
Obamacare can be repealed through a process called reconcilliation with only 51 votes in the senate. It is filibuster proof to do so. Meaning, it can be defunded and repealed as early as Jan 20th, 2017. But if the gop gets power hungry, afraid to make bold decisions, shut the government down and then back down from the principles they shut it down over, authorize more military action, debt, and expansion of spying programs......they'll be a 2 year majority. One and done.
Patience and principles will win the day. As the CBO, OMB, and GAO release updated 10 year forecasts for obamacare costs..... the debt will rise, and rise, and rise. This will provide firepower for repeal. Remember -- the only reason the initial estimate showed debt reduction over 10 years with passage of obamacare was because it included 10 years of taxes, fees, cost savings, but only 6 years of spending because the law wasn't fully phased in. Now that its fully implemented, 10 and 25 year forecasts show billions upon billions in new debt. THATS the key to winning the future. Debt is our biggest enemy, and republicans can defeat it. If they want.
Obamacare can be repealed through a process called reconcilliation with only 51 votes in the senate. It is filibuster proof to do so. Meaning, it can be defunded and repealed as early as Jan 20th, 2017. But if the gop gets power hungry, afraid to make bold decisions, shut the government down and then back down from the principles they shut it down over, authorize more military action, debt, and expansion of spying programs......they'll be a 2 year majority. One and done.
Patience and principles will win the day. As the CBO, OMB, and GAO release updated 10 year forecasts for obamacare costs..... the debt will rise, and rise, and rise. This will provide firepower for repeal. Remember -- the only reason the initial estimate showed debt reduction over 10 years with passage of obamacare was because it included 10 years of taxes, fees, cost savings, but only 6 years of spending because the law wasn't fully phased in. Now that its fully implemented, 10 and 25 year forecasts show billions upon billions in new debt. THATS the key to winning the future. Debt is our biggest enemy, and republicans can defeat it. If they want.
11-10-2014, 05:44 PM
Agreed, the cost, especially when that cost is foisted upon the middle class, is the kicker. Lawmakers have for decades been tinkering with the idea of universal health care, that's true. I believe that at the time they began serious tinkering during HillaryCare, the 'envelope', (or the amount of money or more accurately tax dollars, America could afford to spend on welfare as conceived by the "Great Society" thinkers,) had not been realized. However, I do believe the end has now come into view. With taxpayers funding at least 83 separate welfare programs, and with knees buckling under an enormous foreign aid outreach, we have now added the open ended costs of ObamaCare to a budget of which we know giveaways already take up the lion's share. ObamaCare is an impossibly voracious program BTW, that sees new regulations being authored and coming down at a feverish pace every single day. The end of which would seem slated to be simultaneous with Mr Obama's exit from the Oval Office.
The ACA has fallen miserably short of reaching any marker it was enacted to meet. It's soaring cost as you point out, is an open ended nightmare for those who try to participate in the provision of their own livelihoods. Meanwhile, thanks to the ACA's government mandated dominance, doctors and research are by all accounts becoming disincentivized. I have always argued against long term entitlements for the able bodied. Society will ultimately fail when law makers looking for votes embrace those who will not work as being unfairly oppressed, while as in our case, illegals are yet pouring across our borders to occupy the jobs they feel are beneath them.
The ACA has fallen miserably short of reaching any marker it was enacted to meet. It's soaring cost as you point out, is an open ended nightmare for those who try to participate in the provision of their own livelihoods. Meanwhile, thanks to the ACA's government mandated dominance, doctors and research are by all accounts becoming disincentivized. I have always argued against long term entitlements for the able bodied. Society will ultimately fail when law makers looking for votes embrace those who will not work as being unfairly oppressed, while as in our case, illegals are yet pouring across our borders to occupy the jobs they feel are beneath them.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
