A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Obamacare: Well now, isn't this an interesting bit of phrasing from the Supreme Court.
Posted: Jul 25, 2014
Should Obamacare be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and should the SCOTUS actually decide to hear it, the 4 dissenters when the ACA was upheld by the court previously have already made clear in their dissent what they believed Congress' intent was in setting up the exchanges.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (joint dissenting opinion of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito) "...because Congress thought that some States might decline federal funding for the operation of a 'health benefit exchange,' Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State."
"In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insurance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. ... That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. ... the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (joint dissenting opinion of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito), the 4 dissenting justices state: "...because Congress thought that some States might decline federal funding for the operation of a 'health benefit exchange,' Congress provided a backup scheme; if a State declines to participate in the operation of an exchange, the Federal Government will step in and operate an exchange in that State."
Gee, that's an excellent interpretation in favor of Obamacare. Also, further quoting the dissenting justices: "In the absence of federal subsidies to purchasers, insurance companies will have little incentive to sell insurance on the exchanges. ... That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. ... the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all." (bold added for emphasis).
So it seems quite clear that even the dissenting justices knew Congress' intent with the Obamacare/ACA exchanges as the law was written so Obamacare appears to have legs after all and is here to stay. LOL.
;
I beg to differ. Get a load of this. Just how Congress intended. - CallieCat
[ In Reply To ..]In January 2012, Jonathan Gruber—an MIT economics professor who played a pivotal role in helping Obama draft Obamacare, told an audience this:
"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this." You're certainly correct, Mr. Gruber. But there is no doubt this is what they intended. Anyone who believes anything else, well, you're wrong.
Guess he is saying this is what Congress - sm
[ In Reply To ..]would have meant if they had any idea that the States would not partake in a federal law.
This article (which I think might be what you are referencing, says about Gruber
Following the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Halbig, he asserted that the provision of Obamacare limiting subsidies to the state exchanges was a “typo.” Indeed, he found it “criminal” to suggest that Obamacare was intended to work this way.
That article goes on to state what you just have that there is a 2012 presentation stating that the government knew that th is law would not provide tax credits to those states not setting up exchanges.
That article goes on to state:
As a practical matter, though, Gruber’s 2012 remarks may not be of much consequence. Liberal judges will not be moved by it; presumably, their determination not to sink Obamacare is absolute.
As for the judges who matter most — Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy — they already had all the information they would need to uphold the Halbig result. For them, I suspect, the question would be whether it is politic to pull the trigger.
Hmm.
And this particular SCOTUS is incredibly - sm
[ In Reply To ..]POLITICAL and have repeatedly sided with the Cons. I'm afraid if this issue is brought before them, they may just "pull the trigger," to coincide with their ridiculous "corporations are people" and other pro-Con rulings.
Another problem with your theory is that - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Gruber said this in 2012, almost 2 years AFTER the bill was signed into law. Is this man who is was neither a member of Congress nor a Congressional staffer a good indicator of Congress’ intent when speaking about this LATER? Not really.
The SCOTUS will not consider these words made after the law was passed in order to decide the law's intent. That's a fact.
I understand and agree with what you're - sm
[ In Reply To ..]saying; however, this Supreme Court is so politically aligned with the wingers that they are likely (in my opinion) to throw out the ACA and declare it unconstitutional.
And, yes, I do realize that they already found it to be constitutional, but I also believe they would be blatant enough to overturn it now, especially because of what you wrote. Nobody expects it to happen, and for them to rule against the Act using the weakest reason possible is exactly what they have been doing all during this presidency. If the rich want it, then the SCOTUS is there in their pockets ready to jump out!
And corporations are people, too.
We seem to be hanging our hat on a - judiciary who could care
[ In Reply To ..]less about the actual law.
This is not Gruber's testimony. Even though it seems like a smoking gun - It's not even smoking.
[ In Reply To ..].
Similar Messages:
Why The Supreme Court Will Strike Down All Of ObamacareApr 06, 2012
By Peter Ferrara Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added). President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare heal ...
Liberals Lose Their Cool In The Supreme Court Fight Over ObamacareNov 18, 2014
On Nov. 7, the Supreme Court said it would entertain the latest legal assault on President Obama’s health-reform program. Leading liberal analysts worry—reasonably—that the justices will cripple Obamacare. Unfortunately, these defenders of the program are making their case by preemptively accusing right-leaning members of the high court of bad faith and rank partisanship. Paul Krugman of Princeton and the New York Times has has called the argument that a sy ...
Study: If Supreme Court Guts Obamacare, 9.6 Million Will Lose Health InsuranceJan 09, 2015
January 8, 2015: As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could prove to be a fatal blow against the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, a new study has concluded that the consequences of striking down the law's subsidies for low- and middle-income individuals will result in a sharp drop in the number of Americans with health insurance, as well as a steep rise in premiums. Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-08/study- ...
Supreme Court And DNAJun 03, 2013
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/03/justice/supreme-court-dna-tests/index.html What are your opinions on this ruling? Is this constitutional or a 4th amendment violation? ...
Do You Trust The Supreme CourtMar 26, 2012
Before the decision even comes down from the Supreme Court on Obama's health care law I have to admit I have no confidence in them. It's all political. Giving the election to bush over Gore and allowing corporations to fund elections makes me think the court is not bipartisan. When the highest court in the land is partisan I have no hope. I feel sad for our country. Do you trust them? ...
Breach Of Ethics--Supreme CourtJan 27, 2011
Where is the outrage? Corruption at the highest levels--I hope they impeach this guy. Source: Los Angeles Times\"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report his wife\'s income from a conservative think tank on financial disclosure forms for at least five years, the watchdog group Common Cause said Friday.Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the fou ...
Supreme Court Potential JudgesApr 11, 2010
Ever since Barack Obama's election as president, there has been anticipation among scholars at the University of Chicago's Law School that one of their own could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court bench in the next few years.That anticipation was heightened late last week with news that Obama, who taught constitutional law at the school from 1992 to 2004, soon will be making his first Supreme Court pick.Almost every short list of possible nominees to succeed Justice David Souter inclu ...
Supreme Court Overturns DOMAJun 26, 2013
A huge step in the right direction. The legal challenge to Doma was brought by New York resident Edith Windsor, 83. She was handed a tax bill of $363,000 (£236,000) when she inherited the estate of her spouse Thea Speyer - a levy she would not have had to pay if she had been married to a man. "Doma writes inequality into the entire United States Code," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Wednesday's ruling. "Under Doma, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, ...
Will The Supreme Court Stop Cops From Sep 17, 2013
In many states, police can rifle through your smart phone—even if you've just been arrested for not putting on your seat belt. —By Dana Liebelson | Tue Sep. 17, 2013 3:00 AM PDT 8 Rich Siegel/Flickr If you're like many Americans, your cell phone is overflowing with personal information—text messages, emails, photos of your friends and family, an organized history of who you've been calling, private notes, automatic logi ...
U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Hear Jan 13, 2015
but apparently there is another attack in March to try to deny people the tax-credit subsidies offered by the law. ...
Republicans Are Screwed If The Supreme Court....smMay 20, 2015
guts Obamacare. I don't think they will rule that way; but, if they do, there will be big trouble if all those people lose their insurance. ...
Supreme Court Expresses Skepticism Over ConstitutionalityMar 27, 2012
Lets hope they vote on the side of the law and vote it down. If they do the right thing and vote against it, my trust in them may rise, but unsure. Just unsure if they will do the right thing. My take on the health care is this. Those that want it should be able to get it. Those that don't should not be forced to buy a product we don't wish to purchase every month. And on top of that be told the product has to meet certain circumstances, whiich for m ...
Tea Party Rally Has Message For Supreme CourtMar 26, 2012
There are so many good things about the Affordable Health Care Act. It's hard for me to understand why someone would even think about going without insurance. Cain and the TBs are full of hot air.Two years ago, thousands of members of the tea party descended on Capitol Hill to protest the passage of President Barack Obama’s health care law.On Saturday, just two days before the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law, hundreds of tea party supporters ...
Here's What The Supreme Court Could Do To Insurance Premiums In Your StateNov 13, 2014
More than 800,000 Floridians would see their monthly insurance premiums rise, from an average of around $70 to an average of around $350, or roughly a factor of five. More than 600,000 people in Texas, about 325,000 in North Carolina, and another 275,000 in Georgia would see insurance premiums soar by similar amounts. Nationwide, more than 4 million people living in 37 states would be in situations like these. Most would have no way to pay the higher bills, forcing them to drop insurance covera ...
How The Supreme Court Can Resolve The Debt Ceiling CrisisOct 14, 2013
Adam H. Rosenzweig from the Washington University School of Law proposes a different approach to ending the debt ceiling crisis: Let the Supreme Court resolve it as a Constitutional matter. What should happen when Congress and the President find themselves in a fiscal policy showdown resulting in a Constitutional violation? This question has risen to the fore in light of the recent political showdowns over the so-called “debt ceiling” crisis. Some scholars have argued that there ar ...
Mass. Supreme Court Ruled On Pledge Case..smMay 09, 2014
In this case, a family sued on the grounds that having the Pledge Allegiance recited in school everyday discriminated against their children because they did not follow/worship the Christian God. While their children (and all U.S. children) are free to not recite it, it was argued that non-pledgers were discriminated against, treated as un-American, and un-patriotic, and ridiculed as such. Additionally, even if they wanted to demonstrate their patriotism, these students could not because "Under ...
German Federal Supreme Court: Measles Is NOT A VirusJan 26, 2017
This is the strangest vaccine story I have ever come across. Several scientists proved successfully in Germany that measles is NOT caused by a virus. The case was heard before the German Federal Supreme Court (equivalent of our U.S. SupremeCourt). The plaintiff was a biologist, and he was awarded monetary damages. Reseachers in the past decades committed a critical mistake: They used no controls. As a result, components of regular cells were misidentified as vira ...
Democrats Attempted To Filibuster Bush's Supreme CourtFeb 17, 2016
he would shift the balance of the court. What hypocrites they are and they get away with it. Apparently Harry Reid has forgotten his own role in trying to do so. Payback is a ....... Just two years ago Harry Reid went for the nuclear option eliminated the filibuster rule of 60-40 votes required to override one so he could pack the super-important DC Circuit Court with extreme leftist. The cool thing about having no moral values and no accountability is that you can lie without a guilty ...
Supreme Court Overturns Objection To Cross On Public LandApr 29, 2010
By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 29, 2010 A splintered Supreme Court displayed its deep divisions over the separation of church and state Wednesday, with the court's prevailing conservatives signaling a broader openness to the idea that the Constitution does not require the removal of religious symbols from public land. A 5 to 4 decision by the court overturns a federal judge's objection to a white cross erected more than 75 years ago on a ...
Supreme Court's Majority Sides With U.S. Chamber Of Commerce In Over 2/3 Of Cases Jun 10, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/10/supreme-courts-majority-s_n_607714.html ...
Soros Organization Tried To Influence Illegal Immigration Supreme CourtAug 19, 2016
Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros’ stated vehicle for progressive social change, orchestrated a well-funded attempt to secure a desired outcome in a U.S. Supreme Court case on illegal immigration enforcement, according to a newly discovered memo between the organization’s top U.S. officials and board members. Members of the advisory board include Soros family members, left-wing activists, Ivy League professors and columnists for The Washington Post and Foreign Policy magazine. The ...
Supreme Court Asked To Revive Virginia's Anti-sodomy Law. Aug 19, 2013
"the state wants to “wave a magic wand” and read the broad anti-sodomy law as protecting minors. But the law “does not mention the word ‘minor,’ " From The Washington Post The High Court It is not the headline that Ken Cuccinelli II would have written, of course. But considering the flak Virginia’s attorney general has received for pressing his defense of the commonwealth’s “crimes against nature” law to the Supreme Court, C ...
Supreme Court Signals Support For Corporate Religious ClaimsMar 25, 2014
Maybe there is hope after all... ...
Supreme Court Sends Redistricting Law Back To South Carolina. SmApr 20, 2015
A big victory for voting rights and against gerrymandering of voting districts! ...
Supreme Court Rejects Limits On Corporate Spending In Electoral CampaignsJan 21, 2010
Well, back to square 1. Wonder how many judges are in the pockets of corporations? Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate spending in electoral campaigns Video High court rolls back campaign spending limits The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns. » LAUNCH VIDEO PLAYER ...
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Obama Birth Certificate ChallengeJun 11, 2012
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the challengers did not have legal standing to file the lawsuit.The U.S. Constitution says only "a natural born citizen" may serve as president. The challengers alleg ...
Critics Say Supreme Court's Prop 8 Ruling Takes Power From VotersJul 01, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/30/critics-say-supreme-courts-proposition-8-ruling-ta/ ...
Senate Plans To Follow Biden’s Advice On Supreme Court VacancyFeb 23, 2016
Gotta love that man! LOL ...
Federal Appeals Court Rules Obamacare Subsidies ILLEGALJul 22, 2014
Breaking news ...
Critics: ‘Destructive’ Supreme Court Decision ‘empowers Corruption’Jan 22, 2010
By Ron BrynaertThursday, January 21st, 2010 -- 12:17 pm Republicans say 'freedom won,' liberal jokes real winner is Satan Update: Obama vows 'forceful response' The US Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a 20-year ruling which had set limits on campaign financing by US businesses, and critics, including nonpartisan watchdogs and Congressional Democrats, are up in arms about the decision, which most had feared for a long time. Meanwhile, aside from Senator John McCain (R-AZ), ...