Obamacare

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Hopefully, every politician that has their fingerprints on this gets booted from office.

Gotta love a DREAMER!

[AVGWarhawk]

This administration is horrible. Instead of working to fix the healthcare system the day was spent attempting to fix a law named ACA or affectionally named Obamacare. That's it. Save a legacy. Nothing more. Priorities in DC are themselves. The rule of law does not exist. It changes day to day as dictated from the WH. How can any individual or business owner make good financial decisions when there is no stability in DC? It's chaos. Congress should go home. They don't matter anymore.

[August]

Congress popularity ratings are useless.

Why should a Congresscritter from say Vermont care if a Californian doesn't like his job performance? Answer is he doesn't. All he cares about is the 700k or so people in his district. They are the ones he has to answer to.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

Congress popularity ratings are useless.

Why should a Congresscritter from say Vermont care if a Californian doesn't like his job performance? Answer is he doesn't. All he cares about is the 700k or so people in his district. They are the ones he has to answer to.

And he or she only tells them what they want to hear.

[Onkel Neal]

Supreme Court upholds key Obamacare insurance subsidies



I can see where not allowing a technicality to upend the whole mess makes sense. But the whole mess is still a mess.

[vienna]

Found this news item rather interesting since one rarely gets much background on the machinations of SCOTUS opinions:


http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...tes?cmpid=yhoo


It must be rather chilly in the corridors of the SCOUTUS nowadays...


<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by vienna

It must be rather chilly in the corridors of the SCOUTUS nowadays...

At least that is the hope of some port leaning people.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by vienna

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...tes?cmpid=yhoo

The first paragraph of this opinion piece to me illustrates one of the problems with the SCotUS.

I don't want a Conservative justice on the Supreme Court
I don't want a Liberal justice on the Supreme Court

I want a justice that will logically research constitutional law and render interpretations based on our evolving cultural/environment as a whole independent of a political party's agenda.

The whole idea of "he was appointed by a conservative president so he really needs to vote as a conservative" undermines the purpose of the Supreme Court. It is not, and should never be a politically motivated court. This is one really good reason why they are appointed for life.

Unfortunately/fortunately, justices of the Supreme Court are human and are appointed by politicians, which is a sub-class of human ()

I applaud any justice who votes based on their experience and knowledge of the law despite the political agenda of who appointed them... even when I disagree with how they voted.

I don't have to agree with the vote, but I should agree with the process of the vote. That's part of a representative democracy too.

[Bilge_Rat]

the ruling is right in the mainstream of case law. It is standard to look at the context and object of the law when interpreting particular provisions, so nothing unusual there.

In a larger sense, what the Court is once again saying is that this is a political problem and it is up to voters and Congress to fix it, not the Supreme Court.

This is a narrow ruling, since it only applies to the interpretation of that section as written, Congress is, of course, free to amend the law to explicitely provide that no one will get federal subsidies in states that have not set up their own exchanges...if they so wish...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I want a justice that will logically research constitutional law and render interpretations based on our evolving cultural/environment as a whole independent of a political party's agenda.

I remember reading a long time ago a list of Justices who had disappointed the Presidents who put them there by actually ruling honestly. I wish I could find it again, because it was a fairly long one. I don't like Obamacare but found this ruling refreshing.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Not a fix, just a gamble, hoping to distract sheep with other things.

Like the Kochs and Waltons ravaging the entire country?

[August]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

the ruling is right in the mainstream of case law. It is standard to look at the context and object of the law when interpreting particular provisions, so nothing unusual there.

In a larger sense, what the Court is once again saying is that this is a political problem and it is up to voters and Congress to fix it, not the Supreme Court.

This is a narrow ruling, since it only applies to the interpretation of that section as written, Congress is, of course, free to amend the law to explicitely provide that no one will get federal subsidies in states that have not set up their own exchanges...if they so wish...

This ^

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

the ruling is right in the mainstream of case law. It is standard to look at the context and object of the law when interpreting particular provisions, so nothing unusual there.

In a larger sense, what the Court is once again saying is that this is a political problem and it is up to voters and Congress to fix it, not the Supreme Court.

This is a narrow ruling, since it only applies to the interpretation of that section as written, Congress is, of course, free to amend the law to explicitely provide that no one will get federal subsidies in states that have not set up their own exchanges...if they so wish...

Any senator or congress critter that goes along with that, will be out of a job in short order. Their built in loop hole kind of backfired on them, eh?

I think the IRS has been dragging their heels on the wife's refund until this case was decided.

Compared to what she paid in insurance premiums for the six months prior to her 65th birthday, the subsidy is a joke anyway.

[August]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Their built in loop hole kind of backfired on them, eh?

Who's built in loop hole?

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by August

Who's built in loop hole?

Congress of course!
They slipped that mickey in there in hopes of getting out of paying the subsidies and the ploy backfired.