SCOTUS EMBARASSES ITSELF..........THE SCALIA OPINION

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by timpage

Where were all the "five unelected judges making law" crybabies when the Citizens United opinion declared that corporations were people. I missed it.....

You're a sore loser and a bitch.....in addition to being a fucking welcher. It all fits together.

They were wrong in Citizens United, too.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

SCOTUS deserves derision and mockery; especially those jurists who represent a voting bloc for the left. They aren't there to judge, they aren't serious jurist who weigh complex legal and constitutional issues, they are on SCOTUS to implement progressive politics.

There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by the three cases (Gay Marriage, Obamacare, Fair Housing Housing), there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.

How can that be? Jurisprudence is complex. Supple minds, however likeminded, will often diverge, sometimes dramatically, on principles of constitutional adjudication, canons of statutory construction, murky separation-of-powers boundaries, the etymology of language, and much else. But not the Court’s lefties, not on the major cases. And it is not so much that they move in lockstep. It is that no one expects them to do anything but move in lockstep.

It is simply accepted that these justices are not there to judge. They are there to vote. They get to the desired outcome the same way disparate-impact voodoo always manages to get to discrimination: Start at the end and work backwards.

About time we abandon SCOTUS.........

We should thus drop the pretense that the Court is a tribunal worthy of the protections our system designed for a non-political entity — life-tenure, insulation from elections, and the veil of secrecy that shrouds judicial deliberations. If the justices are going to do politics, they should be in electoral politics.

If John Roberts is going to write laws on the days when he isn’t posing as powerless to write laws, if Anthony Kennedy truly believes the country craves his eccentric notion of liberty (one that condemns government restraints on marriage 24 hours after it tightens government’s noose around one-sixth of the U.S. economy), then their seats should not be in an insulated third branch of government. They should be in an accountable third chamber of Congress.

So we should get rid of them unless they're voting in a way which you agree with?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by timpage

I encourage all of you with the brain wattage to do so to read the opinion (and the dissent) here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-114_qol1.pdf

I'm on the record as saying I think that legally there are problems with the legislation. Justice Roberts shoots me all full of holes......damn fine opinion. Incredibly well-crafted. One of those SCOTUS opinions that nails down legislation with a broader purpose. The ACA is here to stay. Man, I know this is a tough nut to swallow for a lot of you on the board. I just think this is one of those things that the path forward is so clear that the law has to follow it. Americans deserve decent health care whether they can afford it or not. That's what this was all about. I still can't understand those of you who oppose it. Getting decent healthcare shouldn't depend on income level.

How the fuck can any of you argue against that? I just don't get it.

Of course all Americans (whoever that is these days) deserve health care, preferably that they have paid for through their own work. But everyone got it before, as you well know. It was and is a crime to deny healthcare in an emergency. A doctor must stop and help someone if they can.

It will always be rationed one way or another.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

So we should get rid of them unless they're voting in a way which you agree with?

They are an unelected American House of Lords with immense power.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You prove my point; the reliable left always votes as a bloc; they don't judge, they vote to implement progressive agenda. Sometimes they lose (like Citizens United). But they always hang together. Sometimes they are joined by the swing jurists (Kennedy, Roberts), but how they will vote is NEVER in doubt.

CU was a constitutional issue; Obamacare was not. It was a straightforward matter of statutory interpretation. What made it ostensibly straightforward was the law: a statute that says, “an Exchange established by the State,” cannot possibly mean “an Exchange not established by the State.” If we were a nation of laws, such a case would never make it to the highest court in the land.

Well said.

I like the thought of the ACA anyway, but I haven't seen many people it has helped. It does seem like an insurance stockholder support act.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, you can't read either.

The opinion acknowledges that the statutory language was wrong and then ignores the mistake and says "We know what they meant".

Even if true, it is not the job of SCOTUS to "fix" unambiguous language.

The correct ruling would have been to say that "state" meant the state government - just like the statute says - and then let Congress pass an amendment to fix it.

But, opponents should look on the bright side. If they win back Congress, they can pass their own amendment that reverses this decision and explicitly states that ONLY the state governments can establish an exchange and the federal government may not.

So, it was ok for the Federal Government to let a state citizen use their website (healthcare.gov) to sign up for health insurance, but not ok give out the subsidy? What sense does that make? The states that did not want to build their own website that would have all the function that healthcare.gov has, should have just made a website that linked into healthcare.gov and let the healthcare.gov website software execute.

There was never going to be an legislative fix with a republican controlled house of reps who only want to repeal the ACA. What was Paul Ryan's idea for a fix, for the states that don't have their own website, will give out the subsidy for a year?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is not healthcare for all. Sorry, Timmy. It benefits Big Insurance more than the insured.

Prior to the ACA 82% of all citizens under age 65 had health insurance coverage. With the implementation of the ACA, 92% of all citizens under age 65 have health insurance coverage, fact jack.

The BIG insurance companies do not benefit by selling health insurance to people who are "Already Sick". Prior to the ACA being passed the Big insurance companies refused to sell a policy to someone with pre-existing conditions in the individual market. It has already been shown that Aetna and some of the other health insurance companies have lost money in some states because the risk pools they were dealing with were not balanced.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Prior to the ACA 82% of all citizens under age 65 had health insurance coverage. With the implementation of the ACA, 92% of all citizens under age 65 have health insurance coverage, fact jack.

The BIG insurance companies do not benefit by selling health insurance to people who are "Already Sick". Prior to the ACA being passed the Big insurance companies refused to sell a policy to someone with pre-existing conditions in the individual market. It has already been shown that Aetna and some of the other health insurance companies have lost money in some states because the risk pools they were dealing with were not balanced.

Bullshit.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Bullshit.

Prior to the ACA being passed, BCBS of Tenn would not sell a health insurance policy to someone who was already sick. They are now. Fact Jack. Medical history can't be used to deny someone a health insurance policy, in the past it could. Your alzheimers is getting so bad, you don't know what you talking about.

From the link on increasing health insurance rates.

Obviously, not even an evil insurance company can stay in business if it consistently loses large amounts of money. Earlier this month, Assurant Health announced that losses related to Obamacare are causing it to close its doors. Western Journalism reports, “The company and industry watchers blamed its losses directly on the impact of Obamacare.… Assurant lost $63.7 million in 2014. The insurer raised its rates by 20 percent in 2015, in hopes of returning to profitability, but lost between $80 to $90 million during the first quarter of this year.” The company has been in business for 123 years and provides coverage for 1 million people.

Assurant is based in Wisconsin, but insurers all across the country are attempting to survive the same perverse incentives that finally undid that venerable company. The Journal lists proposed increases by companies offering plans through exchanges in Connecticut, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington state. And many of these companies are already losing huge amounts of money: “BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee… lost $141 million from exchange-sold plans, stemming largely from a small number of sick enrollees.” It is asking for a 36.3 percent rate increase.



http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1394088

[CuteOldGuy]

What happens to Obamacare if all the insurance providers go out of business?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What happens to Obamacare if all the insurance providers go out of business?

Not all insurance providers are losing money in the individual market on the government exchanges. Post 39 shows that some insurance providers in some states have lost money, thus they are asking for rate increases in those states. You have asked a hypothetical that is just not going to happen, some insurance companies may stop selling policies in some states but not all.

[I B Hankering]

Jonathan Holmes Gruber was born on September 30, 1965 (wiki).

flghtr65


Coincidence????

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

So, it was ok for the Federal Government to let a state citizen use their website (healthcare.gov) to sign up for health insurance, but not ok give out the subsidy?

Correct. That is what the statute ACTUALLY says. You know, the language Congress voted on.

Originally Posted by flghtr65

What sense does that make?

The only sense that it has to make is that it was voted on by Congress. That was the scheme that was put in place. That is the way the law works. Each state had the power to say yeah or nay on establishing an exchange. At least before SCOTUS decided to offend plain language.

Originally Posted by flghtr65

There was never going to be an legislative fix with a republican controlled house of reps who only want to repeal the ACA. What was Paul Ryan's idea for a fix, for the states that don't have their own website, will give out the subsidy for a year?

Even if true, so what?

If Congress decided not to fix it, then so be it. That is called democracy.

If the status quo was so offensive, then the Democrats would have taken back Congress and amended the statute to refer to exchanges established by the State or by Congress.

Instead, SCOTUS decided to disregard the law and take a political position. They and we will rue the day. Who knows how often this will occur in the future now that the precedent has been set?

The next time a federal agency may disregard statutory language at the behest of a GOP president. Then what will the left say?