FOUR LITTLE WORDS.......

[Whirlaway]

The statutory weight of Obamacare hangs on four little words:

“...established by the state.”

The supreme court will decide what Congress meant when they drafted the law. So far, Democrats and their Administrative State (chiefly the IRS) have decided to ignore the law as written.

How / What will SCOTUS decide?

Were those 4 words a "drafting error"?

[Yssup Rider]

ONE LITTLE WORD......

SPAM!

[Whirlaway]

As always, we can county on Assup to contribute with his well thought out replies.

[CuteOldGuy]

I think the Court will double down on their previous incredibly stupid decision by twisting words, logic and common sense, and rule in favor of Obamacare, further diminishing the credibility of the Court, and continuing our long strides into statism.

[chefnerd]

It actually comes down to which definition of the word "state" that gets used. One of the definitions used by the Oxford Dictionary is as follows:

'A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.'

[timpage]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think the Court will double down on their previous incredibly stupid decision by twisting words, logic and common sense, and rule in favor of Obamacare, further diminishing the credibility of the Court, and continuing our long strides into statism.

Logic and common sense dictate that all persons living in the USA, the most powerful and the richest country in the history of the world, should have access to decent healthcare, regardless of their finances.

That said, the language in the statute is problematic.

>>>What matters, Justice Antonin Scalia has said, is “not what Congress would have wanted, but what Congress enacted.”<<<<

[IIFFOFRDB]

States Rights! fuckers, ask Romney...

[shanm]

Originally Posted by timpage

Logic and common sense dictate that all persons living in the USA, the most powerful and the richest country in the history of the world, should have access to decent healthcare, regardless of their finances.

That said, the language in the statute is problematic.

>>>What matters, Justice Antonin Scalia has said, is “not what Congress would have wanted, but what Congress enacted.”<<<<

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...alth-coverage/

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Wonder how many Americans ISIS is killing each year.

[CuteOldGuy]

Seems like a simple piece of legislation would solve the problem. Since Obamacare has been such a resounding success, and immensely popular, I'm sure Congress will pass a bill straightaway, to avoid the public outcry if Obamacare is rejected.

If the Justices have any integrity, they will adopt the definition that Congress obviously intended. Well, not Congress, none of those clowns read the damn thing. What Gruber intended. This was to be a hammer to force the states to enact exchanges. The states refused. Now the Administration is saying that the term "state" means the federal government. Well, a bill of this size probably has a definition section. What does that say? How is the word used elsewhere in the document? It refers to a "state".


I used to write legislation. You never use vague terms. You write legislation to accomplish a purpose, and you structure the language to that end. You write in a way to avoid judicial challenges, so people won't pervert your legislation.


And we have Gruber.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Seems like a simple piece of legislation would solve the problem. Since Obamacare has been such a resounding success, and immensely popular, I'm sure Congress will pass a bill straightaway, to avoid the public outcry if Obamacare is rejected.

If the Justices have any integrity, they will adopt the definition that Congress obviously intended. Well, not Congress, none of those clowns read the damn thing. What Gruber intended. This was to be a hammer to force the states to enact exchanges. The states refused. Now the Administration is saying that the term "state" means the federal government. Well, a bill of this size probably has a definition section. What does that say? How is the word used elsewhere in the document? It refers to a "state".


I used to write legislation. You never use vague terms. You write legislation to accomplish a purpose, and you structure the language to that end. You write in a way to avoid judicial challenges, so people won't pervert your legislation.


And we have Gruber.

And now you write incoherent drivel on the internet. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

And now you write incoherent drivel on the internet. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

I thought it was pretty spot on. You can't please everyone, as I'm sure you know, WormRaper.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by timpage

Logic and common sense dictate that all persons living in the USA, the most powerful and the richest country in the history of the world, should have access to decent healthcare, regardless of their finances.

That said, the language in the statute is problematic.

>>>What matters, Justice Antonin Scalia has said, is “not what Congress would have wanted, but what Congress enacted.”<<<<

This has nothing to do with healthcare but health INSURANCE.

[Jackie S]

The wording is very problematic, it would not have got as far as the SCOTUS if it were not.

In just about every other section of the ACA, any time the word State is used, it is referring to One of the 50 States, not some ambiguous entity.

But the SCOTUS showed in it's initial ruling on the ACA that it can become very Political. The Democrats spent years telling the American People that the penalties or any other punitive parts of the ACA were NOT taxes, nor was any othe part of the funding for the ACA taxes.

Then the SCOTUS says that Congress has the power to levy taxes, (not mandates), and bingo, they suddenly become taxes, the law is Constitutional, and everybody is happy.

It's "Bizzarro World".

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I used to write legislation. You never use vague terms. You write legislation to accomplish a purpose, and you structure the language to that end. You write in a way to avoid judicial challenges, so people won't pervert your legislation.

That is what SHOULD be done. Too often we have careless/incompetent people writing the legislation--careless I believe is the more common. I have read a lot of proposed legislation and almost always I point out ambiguous wording, or cases where the author THINKS they covered all the options, but have missed some. The good ones say "thank you" and tighten it up--not always the way I would like, but at least make it more well defined.

The devious ones make changes too--only they try to hide the loopholes that they want to leave in there.

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

This has nothing to do with healthcare but health INSURANCE.

Healthcare and insurance are intrinsically linked unless you truly want free healthcare. The real question is, when the current poorly thought out ACA is repealed/voided, will we finally get an intelligent alternative, or will the RWWs try to drive us to the equally bad (just in different ways for different people) previous condition?

[Whirlaway]

Originally Posted by Old-T

.. Too often we have careless/incompetent people writing the legislation--careless I believe is the more common.

"Careless" isn't what occurred in the drafting of the AHCA. The language (in question) was intended.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/wa...e#.h1g6ww:Jd66