A stake in the heart of ObamaCare

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The language in the bill was deliberate and not an oversight.

And the part about the state subsidies was in plainer, clearer English than almost anything else in the bill.

It is not the job of the judiciary to intuit the intent of the Congress, or to clean up their messes afterward when they are too incompetent to write what they mean. Or after they write unconstitutional laws.

Congress must have hundreds of lawyers on staff, and many of the members of Congress are lawyers. Or at least they have law degrees they got from someplace. You would think that they could write a law and figure out what that law says.

[JustRalph]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=115045

I brought this up before.

We are governed by idiots who can't even write the laws to say what they want them to say

[PICSIX]

Originally Posted by mostpost

This ruling is ridiculous. It asks us to believe that Congress would include in their bill, the seeds of it destruction. It asks us to believe that Congress wished to include subsidies for one set of exchanges and not another. It asks us to believe that the purpose of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges, when the purpose clearly was to help applicant pay for their insurance.

It ignores all sorts of other language in the bill that makes it clear that the subsidies were intended for participants in all exchanges, federal and state.
It ignores the legislative history and debate which also makes this clear.

The "They didn't read the bill" argument does not fly. It doesn't get on the runway. In fact it is still sitting in the hangar.

Perhaps some of the congressmen did not read all of the bill, but every one of them has people on staff whose job it is to do just that. If they failed to anticipate this it is only because this court's interpretation is so off base, so laughably wrong as to be inconceivable.

I note with no surprise that the judges who rendered the majority decision were appointed by George W. Bush and George HW Bush.

This decision will be overturned by the full Appellate Court.

You are most likely correct. 7 of the 11 Judges were appointed by Democratic Presidents...4 of which were appointed by President Obama.

What does this say about our legal system?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

We are governed by idiots who can't even write the laws to say what they want them to say

And more proof that the judges aren't any smarter. The 4th Circuit Court just ruled in favor of the ObamaCare subsidiaries, saying that they couldn't figure out what the language meant, so they were going to leave the interpretation of the law to the IRS.

The country is doomed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal regulations that implemented subsidies that are vital to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, in direct conflict with another ruling on the issue handed down earlier on Tuesday.


A three-judge panel unanimously said the law was ambiguous, and that it would defer to the IRS's determination that subsidies could go to individuals who purchased health insurance on both federal and state-run exchanges.

I would say this issue just hit the fast track to the SCOTUS.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by AndyC

The language in the bill was deliberate and not an oversight. The intent was to make setting up state exchanges attractive. There is nothing to suggest that the intent was different.

The ruling may, in fact, get reversed by the full court but it is a slam dunk that the Supreme Court won't try to re-write the law simply because it didn't work as intended.

That was not the intent. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the bill or in the legislative debate leading up to the bill indicates that the intent of the subsidies was to encourage states to set up exchanges. If Congress had wanted to do that, there were many more effective ways to accomplish the goal.

The intent of the subsidies was to subsidize. Simple as that. To subsidize to help people to purchase insurance.

The Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit Court of Virginia agrees with my interpretation. They unanimously upheld the subsidies just hours after the Washington court issued its ruling.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

The Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit Court of Virginia agrees with my interpretation.

.

[Tom]

Shoot all the judges....then the lawyers.

[classhandicapper]

This thread should read "A stake through the heart of the country" and be about our president, congress, and court system.

Honestly, if I didn't have family responsibilities right now (an elderly mother and brother with special needs) and was wired to be a little more comfortable with change (which I unfortunately am not), I would be in the serious research phase of leaving the country. I still may do it eventually.

[hcap]

A stake in the heart of ObamaCare ?

More like a stake in the heart of the republican dominated red state poor. Blue states will continue to do just fine, but 5 or 6 million red state voters are the ones that may be motivated to move or re think their vote. (if this decision stands)

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This thread should read "A stake through the heart of the country" and be about our president, congress, and court system.

Honestly, if I didn't have family responsibilities right now (an elderly mother and brother with special needs) and was wired to be a little more comfortable with change (which I unfortunately am not), I would be in the serious research phase of leaving the country. I still may do it eventually.

We get it. You don't have to tell us weekly that you want out. But....

If you do decide on the place to go - even if you never get there - please tell us where and why. That would be interesting.

[horses4courses]

It's too soon to panic -- or celebrate, as the case may be: Obamacare isn't dead. And given the flimsy logic of the latest legal argument against it, there's a good chance it never will be.

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...other-nonsense

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

We get it. You don't have to tell us weekly that you want out. But....

If you do decide on the place to go - even if you never get there - please tell us where and why. That would be interesting.

It would have to be an English speaking country with a generally conservative population and good racing. Ireland & Australia are high on the list.

[sandpit]

I have a friend who left the States for New Zealand, along with his girlfriend, whom is going to marry. She is from the Netherlands. Both have permanent residency in Kiwi-land and both left their home countries for the same reason: government intrusion and lack of true leadership.

After many, many months of paperwork, they are both immensely happy and living in a land that looks like the grand cinemascope from the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

[davew]

I was watching msnbc and Al Sharpton says it is all a bunch of noise over a simple typo. (I am guessing that 0bama has fixed over 40 of these simple typos so far)

I was watching fox news and Charles Krauthammer said it was specifically worded that way to act as a stimulus for the states to start their own exchanges. If they don't like the law, then Congress needs to amend the law (not whine about what someone feels someones intent is).


I am so confused - but what about those people expecting their insurance subsidized and cheaper only to find next year it will be double what it was a couple of years ago?

[Tom]

The typo:

[X] American