- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obamacare, not so fast
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:07 am to KeyserSoze999
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:07 am to KeyserSoze999
States rights bitches 
1
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:07 am to FalseProphet
no, I get it
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:08 am to Mr.Perfect
quote:
States rights bitches
This literally has absolutely nothing to do with states' rights. ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:11 am to KeyserSoze999
It's my understanding that the law was written to specifically state that the only way that a state could receive subsidies is if the state implemented state exchanges. It was written that way to incentivize the states to implement state run exchanges and take that burden off the federal government's back.
That was the original intent.
2 of the 3 judges agreed with that intent and letter of the law today.
Unfortunately, the newly appointed judges on the 7th circuit will reverse this ruling using some type of legal gymnastics.
That was the original intent.
2 of the 3 judges agreed with that intent and letter of the law today.
Unfortunately, the newly appointed judges on the 7th circuit will reverse this ruling using some type of legal gymnastics.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:12 am to GumboPot
Then onto Supreme court
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:12 am to GumboPot
quote:
Unfortunately, the newly appointed judges on the 7th circuit will reverse this ruling using some type of legal gymnastics.
Can they not just say "hey, those 2 guy were wrong."? (they weren't, by the way)
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 10:13 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:13 am to FalseProphet
quote:
This literally has absolutely nothing to do with states' rights. ABSOLUTELY ZERO
Nope has everything to do with Nancy Pelosi not knowing what's in the law until it was passed. This is what happens when you take the nuclear option and ram legislation thru - things get lost in huge bills all the time.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:15 am to GumboPot
quote:
7th circuit
Not 7th. D.C. Circuit.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:15 am to FalseProphet
quote:
This literally has absolutely nothing to do with states' rights. ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
Not a traditional version of it.
However, the states will have set off a death spiral for ObamaCare if this is upheld, as 30+ states opting to let the feds set up the exchange means roughly half the country won't get subsidies for the insurance, which greatly reduces the number of people willing to participate.
That sets off higher premiums and even lower participation.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:16 am to FalseProphet
quote:
This literally has absolutely nothing to do with states' rights. ABSOLUTELY ZERO.
Disagree.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:16 am to the808bass
quote:
Disagree.
Thanks for the input. Please tell us all why?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:20 am to FalseProphet
My opinion was as succinct and supported as yours.
The catalyst for all of this was the oft-repeated dance of states accepting handouts from the Feds by acquiescing to Fed demands. The Feds asked for state exchanges and 30-some odd states (I think 36) told the Feds to pound sand. If only 5 had said "Frick off," this ruling would be meaningless. As 36 said "no thanks," it changes the import of this decision quite a bit.
Additionally, many of the states said no thanks to avoid future Medicare/Medicaid obligations.
In short, it has a lot to do with state's rights.
The catalyst for all of this was the oft-repeated dance of states accepting handouts from the Feds by acquiescing to Fed demands. The Feds asked for state exchanges and 30-some odd states (I think 36) told the Feds to pound sand. If only 5 had said "Frick off," this ruling would be meaningless. As 36 said "no thanks," it changes the import of this decision quite a bit.
Additionally, many of the states said no thanks to avoid future Medicare/Medicaid obligations.
In short, it has a lot to do with state's rights.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:21 am to GumboPot
quote:
It's my understanding that the law was written to specifically state that the only way that a state could receive subsidies is if the state implemented state exchanges. It was written that way to incentivize the states to implement state run exchanges and take that burden off the federal government's back.
That was the argument that the challengers presented at oral argument before the D.C. Circuit. The judge who dissented asked the challengers many, many times during oral argument to point to one shred of evidence that that was the case. The challengers couldn't.
Not saying it rises and falls with that, but I think you can throw that out the window.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:21 am to CptBengal
quote:I must've missed the disaster coverage.
The bill is an unmitigated disaster.
How do you define "disaster?"
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:23 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Thanks for the input. Please tell us all why?
quote:
Thanks for the input. Please tell us all why?
I don't even care, I just find it inconsistent that you make a blanket statement with no explanation, and yet people disagreeing with you are somehow required to enter a lengthy explanation before hitting "submit"
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:23 am to FalseProphet
quote:
That was the argument that the challengers presented at oral argument before the D.C. Circuit. The judge who dissented asked the challengers many, many times during oral argument to point to one shred of evidence that that was the case. The challengers couldn't.
There may be an opposing argument to this. Not sure.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:24 am to KeyserSoze999
Obama is reaching for his pen and phone as we speak to circumvent this ruling
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:24 am to the808bass
Let me see if i have this right.
The court said obamacare wasn't right because the way it was drafted said that states have to create these exchanges.. So federal exchanges cant exist in states that don't have exchanges?
am i missing something? I havent seen the opinion but that seems to be what the articles are implying.
The court said obamacare wasn't right because the way it was drafted said that states have to create these exchanges.. So federal exchanges cant exist in states that don't have exchanges?
am i missing something? I havent seen the opinion but that seems to be what the articles are implying.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:25 am to the808bass
quote:
There may be an opposing argument to this. Not sure.
Go listen to the oral argument. I did. They couldn't point to anything in the legislative record, a single public statement, or anything at all indicating that's why that language was crafted that way.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:26 am to petar
BREAKING: Obama administration says health care subsidies will keep flowing despite court decision.
Associated Press tweeted this.
Associated Press tweeted this.
Page 3 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News