Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    25 Jun '15 15:51 / 1 edit
    The Supreme Court has spoken. The ACA is here to stay. Millions now have health coverage that did not before. America's "I've got mine, so to hell with you" attitude has taken a body blow. Let the whining begin!

    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/live-scotus-obamacare-reaction-the-u-s-supreme-122423986811.html
  2. 25 Jun '15 16:08
    What did the empty suit say to the 9 empty robes?

    Well done!! They did not have a ghost of a chance!!
  3. 25 Jun '15 19:45 / 1 edit
    GW was such a great Conservative President that he appointed only conservative judges.

    We must continue to vote for Republicans so that conservative judges will be appointed.
  4. 25 Jun '15 20:00
    “The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, referring to the challengers, “because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the act to avoid.”


    Roberts does not disagree because the interpretation is not correct, but because of the outcome if the words were to be upheld.

    That's a judge for you. He's just following the letter of the law, as long as it isn't too inconvenient.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jun '15 20:39
    Originally posted by Eladar
    [b]“The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, referring to the challengers, “because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange, and likely create the very ‘death spirals’ that Congress designed the act to avoid.”


    Roberts does not disagree becaus ...[text shortened]... sn't too inconvenient.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0[/b]
    He did what judges are required to do when interpreting statutes. He quotes extensively from prior decisions citing this centuries old rule of law:

    Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not
    isolated provisions.”

    p. 9
    the
    words of a statute must be read in their context and with a
    view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.”

    “We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate
    their own stated purposes.”

    both at p. 15

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

    That idea that Congress did not intend people in all 50 States to be eligible to receive subsidies is ludicrous.
  6. 25 Jun '15 22:11
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    He did what judges are required to do when interpreting statutes. He quotes extensively from prior decisions citing this centuries old rule of law:

    Our duty, after all, is “to construe statutes, not
    isolated provisions.”

    p. 9
    the
    words of a statute must be read in their context and with a
    view to their place in the overall statutory scheme. ...[text shortened]... ongress did not intend people in all 50 States to be eligible to receive subsidies is ludicrous.
    Yeah he did, he just gave Obama and the powers that be what they want:

    You know, public moneys diverted to public companies.
  7. 25 Jun '15 22:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    That idea that the Democrats in Congress did not intend people in all 50 States to be eligible to receive subsidies is ludicrous. (fixed)
    Stop assuming that the 2009 Democrat-run Congress had kindhearted motives when they wrote and passed Obamacare. The Dims meant what they said when they wrote that only purchases made through State exchanges would be eligible for subsidies.

    Why did they do this? Well, the Dims wanted States that did not implement Obamacare by creating State exchanges to be PUNISHED by their voters. The Dims assumed that most States would create exchanges, and voters in non-state-created-exchanges States would notice that their premiums were absurdly more expensive then premiums in state-created exchanges States. This "political reality" would result in voters electing state-level Dim politicians to create State exchanges.

    Unfortunately for the Dims, their assumptions were wrong. Most States did not create exchanges because it was too onerous for them. Since most States opted not to create an exchange, the political consequence for failure to implement Obamacare did not exist. Rather, it backfired on the Dims and caused premiums to go up everywhere. So Obama unlawfully used his pen and phone to rewrite the statute so that subsidies were available for purchases made in Federal exchanges.

    This is how modern Cultural Marxism works. Obey or else. You should know this, Marauder. After all, your fellow comrades on this board try to get you BANNED whenever you disagree with them, which is quite the spectacle I must admit, lol. Obey or else!

    ---------------------------

    Here is direct evidence of the 2009 Dims' pernicious motives and the subsequent coverup:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U (Gruber talking about the "political realities" of not creating a State exchange)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHFOgjXevdk (Nancy Pelosi endorses Gruber's analysis of Obamacare)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhNlcB_K1iM (After the Gruber story broke a year ago, Nancy Pelosi claimed she did not know Gruber @ 1:15)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6yoHcOhF0U (Obama on Gruber in 2006)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4jFIJ9WFjs (Obama on Gruber in 2014 claiming Gruber was not on his staff; Gruber stating in 2012 that he helped brainstorm w/ Obama on how to get Obamacare passed)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ_ZXWLgi8U (A couple days ago, MSNBC admitted that the Obama admin was not forthcoming on Gruber's Obamacare role)
  8. 25 Jun '15 22:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    GW was such a great Conservative President that he appointed only conservative judges.

    We must continue to vote for Republicans so that conservative judges will be appointed.
    Not so sure that's reliable.

    Scalia Reagan Anti-ACA
    Kennedy Reagan Pro
    Thomas Bush I Anti
    Ginsberg Clinton Pro
    Breyer Clinton Pro
    Roberts Bush II Pro
    Alito Bush II Anti
    Sotomeyer Obama Pro
    Kagan Obama Pro

    Two judges appointed by Republicans voted Pro-ACA. If they were "faithful" to their Republican (conservative?) appointers, that would have been enough to swing the vote to 5-4 Anti.
  9. 25 Jun '15 22:30
    Originally posted by JS357
    Not so sure that's reliable.

    Scalia Reagan Anti-ACA
    Kennedy Reagan Pro
    Thomas Bush I Anti
    Ginsberg Clinton Pro
    Breyer Clinton Pro
    Roberts Bush II Pro
    Alito Bush II Anti
    Sotomeyer Obama Pro
    Kagan Obama Pro

    Two judges appointed by Republicans voted Pro-ACA. If they were "faithful" to their Republican (conservative?) appointers, that would have been enough to swing the vote to 5-4 Anti. And Kennedy voted Anti-ACA in the 2012 decision.
    Nice job pointing out the obvious.

    I made a statement that was obviously incorrect to anyone with eyes, which includes myself. Good job pointing out exactly what I meant.
  10. 25 Jun '15 22:42
    Scalia (79), Kennedy (78), Ginsburg (82), and Breyer (76) are close to retirement. The next couple years are going to be interesting indeed. Are we going to get real justices on the bench? Or we going to get more social justices?
  11. 25 Jun '15 22:44
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Nice job pointing out the obvious.

    I made a statement that was obviously incorrect to anyone with eyes, which includes myself. Good job pointing out exactly what I meant.
    Give that man a beer. Admits mistake on the Debates Forum.
  12. 25 Jun '15 23:22
    Some presumably comfortably affluent 'liberal' Americans seem too busy preening or gloating
    to care about the 'whining' (who cares?) from the many Americans with no health insurance.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/25/obamacare-affordable-care-act-ruling-healthcare-uninsured

    "Obamacare ruling: what about the 35 million people who are still uninsured?"
    --Dan Roberts (25 June 2015)

    The ACA may be better than nothing. But only a smug 'liberal' American who's been
    'brainwashed' into believing that the mainstream Democratic Party's the most humane,
    progressive force in the world could believe that the ACA's close to an ideal health care solution.
    Many people outside the USA have health care systems that are more inclusive and cost-efficient.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    25 Jun '15 23:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    Stop assuming that the 2009 Democrat-run Congress had kindhearted motives when they wrote and passed Obamacare. The Dims meant what they said when they wrote that only purchases made through State exchanges would be eligible for subsidies.

    Why did they do this? Well, the Dims wanted States that did not implement Obamacare by creating State exchange ...[text shortened]... le days ago, MSNBC admitted that the Obama admin was not forthcoming on Gruber's Obamacare role)
    The "hidden conspiracy" theory.

    It's nonsense.

    I suggest you read the decision. Chief Justice Roberts ridicules the idea that the Congress would have made everyone eligible for the subsidies but made the applicable subsidy amounts for individuals in the States without a State established exchange "$0":

    Finally, the structure of Section 36B itself suggests that
    tax credits are not limited to State Exchanges. Section
    36B(a) initially provides that
    tax credits “shall be allowed”
    for any “applicable taxpayer.” Section 36B(c)(1) then
    defines an “applicable taxpayer” as someone who (among
    other things) has a household income between 100 percent
    and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. Together,
    these two provisions appear to make anyone in the speci
    -
    fied income range eligible
    to receive a tax credit.

    According to petitioners, however, those provisions are
    an empty promise in States with a Federal Exchange. In
    their view, an applicable taxpayer in such a State would
    be
    eligible
    for a tax credit—but the
    amount
    of that tax
    credit would always be zero.
    And that is because—diving
    several layers down into th
    e Tax Code—Section 36B says
    that the amount of the tax credits shall be “an amount
    equal to the premium assistance credit amount,” §36B(a);
    and then says that the term “premium assistance credit
    amount” means “the sum of the premium assistance
    amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to
    all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the
    taxable year,” §36B(b)(1); and then says that the term
    “premium assistance amount” is tied to the amount of the
    monthly premium for insurance purchased on “an Ex
    -
    change established by the State under [42 U. S. C.
    20

    §18031],” §36B(b)(2); and then says that the term “cover
    -
    age month” means any month in which the taxpayer has
    insurance through “an Exchange established by the State
    under [42 U. S. C. §18031],” §36B(c)(2)(A)(i).
    We have held that Congress “does not alter the funda
    -
    mental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or
    ancillary provisions.”
    Whitman
    v.
    American Trucking
    Assns., Inc.
    , 531 U. S. 457, 468 (2001). But in petitioners’
    view, Congress made the viability of the entire Affordable
    Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub-
    sub-sub section of the Tax Code. We doubt that is what
    Congress meant to do. Had Congress meant to limit tax
    credits to State Exchanges, it
    likely would have done so in
    the definition of “applicable taxpayer” or in some other
    prominent manner. It would not have used such a wind
    -
    ing path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amount of the credit.

    pp. 19-20 of the majority opinion

    (Emphasis added)
  14. 26 Jun '15 03:09
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    He did what judges are required to do when interpreting statutes. He quotes extensively from prior decisions citing this centuries old rule of law:

    .
    Where did they cite Dred Scott?

    I guess that means blacks don't get health care.
  15. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    26 Jun '15 06:18
    Many people outside the USA have health care systems that are more inclusive and cost-efficient.

    This is true, but it's the best American's can hope for at this point, considering many American's still favor the "pay or die" system that was in place before the ACA.