Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Tax capitalism to death... brilliant, thank you. Any words of wisdom regarding Obamacare? do you think he will be able to subsidize only Blue States eventually and let people in Red States go out in the woods seeking herbs and berries for their medicine?
No end to the lying that the left will do for their agenda. All here:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube
One of the architects of obamacare was found on a 2012 videotape stating in no uncertain terms that only people in state run exchanges get the subsidies.
Now, this same person goes on msnbc and claims that the theory that only state run exchanges get tax credits is a "nutty" idea. And he claims that it is "unambiguously" only a "typo" in the law.
So now we have videotape proof that they are lying.
The law was clear and it was on purpose to pressure states to set up their own exchanges or their citizens wouldn't get the money.
Even with videotape proof that they are lying their behinds off the courts will most likely rule in their favor anyway. Thats where this country stands five years into a fraudulent president.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/watch-obamacare-architect-jonathan-grube
One of the architects of obamacare was found on a 2012 videotape stating in no uncertain terms that only people in state run exchanges get the subsidies.
Now, this same person goes on msnbc and claims that the theory that only state run exchanges get tax credits is a "nutty" idea. And he claims that it is "unambiguously" only a "typo" in the law.
So now we have videotape proof that they are lying.
The law was clear and it was on purpose to pressure states to set up their own exchanges or their citizens wouldn't get the money.
Even with videotape proof that they are lying their behinds off the courts will most likely rule in their favor anyway. Thats where this country stands five years into a fraudulent president.
Originally Posted by futurecurrents
"... The progressive tax rate system needs to be more progressive. The wealthy need to start paying more...."
You really need to move to Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea.... where you'd have nothing to bitch about and could live the rich and happy life you so desperately hope others will provide for you.
(Of course, you can always hope Odumbo is successful in remaking America to be like those places.)
"... The progressive tax rate system needs to be more progressive. The wealthy need to start paying more...."
You really need to move to Venezuela, Cuba or North Korea.... where you'd have nothing to bitch about and could live the rich and happy life you so desperately hope others will provide for you.
(Of course, you can always hope Odumbo is successful in remaking America to be like those places.)
Surely Congress didn't mean to prescribe a 'poison pill' for ACA
July 23rd, felt like a roller coaster ride for Affordable Care Act supporters.
Shortly after 10 a.m., two members of a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision in Halbig v. Burwell striking down, over a vigorous dissent, an Internal Revenue Service rule that permits federally-facilitated exchanges to issue premium tax credits. Two hours later, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia unanimously upheld the same rule in King v. Burwell. Both Halbig and King are cases sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-Affordable Care Act advocacy group. more . . .
July 23rd, felt like a roller coaster ride for Affordable Care Act supporters.
Shortly after 10 a.m., two members of a three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a decision in Halbig v. Burwell striking down, over a vigorous dissent, an Internal Revenue Service rule that permits federally-facilitated exchanges to issue premium tax credits. Two hours later, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia unanimously upheld the same rule in King v. Burwell. Both Halbig and King are cases sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-Affordable Care Act advocacy group. more . . .
This would be all well and good if they hadnt repeatedly said that their intention all along was to only subsidise people who set up their own exchanges to force the states to do it. You really have to be a hard core party liner to ignore exactly what they were saying the whole time, and believe this new B.S. that it was an accident.
Clearly they are violating the written terms of the law, or as liberals term it, hairsplitting over typos. Anyway, if you liked your doctor, you got t okeep him. ditto your insurance plan.
The problem here is not conflicting provisions of the law. It is a law that is so grossly intrusive that it has spawned irreconciable conflicts all across the spectrum, from religious liberty issues to fraudulent applications to humongous waste of money on websites to fights over subsidies.
This entire law should be bronzed and placed in the Capitol Rotunda to remind lawmakers what happens when they overreach. We have to admit a mistake, scrap it and start over.
The problem here is not conflicting provisions of the law. It is a law that is so grossly intrusive that it has spawned irreconciable conflicts all across the spectrum, from religious liberty issues to fraudulent applications to humongous waste of money on websites to fights over subsidies.
This entire law should be bronzed and placed in the Capitol Rotunda to remind lawmakers what happens when they overreach. We have to admit a mistake, scrap it and start over.
It's interesting that the "abide by the Constitution" principle rests on intent, yet the ACA must be read literally.
The purpose of the ACA to a large extent was to get those who could not afford health insurance on the insurance rolls in order to provide more reasonable and affordable care than emergency rooms (and to relieve those could did have insurance from having to pay for the "charity cases" who benefited from medical facilities but could not pay). Who cares whether the state or federal governments provide the subsidies? It's irrelevant.
The purpose of the ACA to a large extent was to get those who could not afford health insurance on the insurance rolls in order to provide more reasonable and affordable care than emergency rooms (and to relieve those could did have insurance from having to pay for the "charity cases" who benefited from medical facilities but could not pay). Who cares whether the state or federal governments provide the subsidies? It's irrelevant.