- 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 architect mouths off yet again; cause problems for Dems
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:16 pm to Hawkeye95
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:16 pm to Hawkeye95
He claims in an amicus brief on the state exchanges that using the term "state exchange" was a typo and that all exchanges get subsidies.
Problem is that we have video saying the opposite.
That is the current case SCOTUS is reviewing and it should make for some interesting questioning.
Problem is that we have video saying the opposite.
That is the current case SCOTUS is reviewing and it should make for some interesting questioning.
2
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:21 pm to teke184
quote:
He claims in an amicus brief on the state exchanges that using the term "state exchange" was a typo and that all exchanges get subsidies.
Problem is that we have video saying the opposite.
That is the current case SCOTUS is reviewing and it should make for some interesting questioning.
Yes, after I read this, obamacare could be seriously fricked.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:21 pm to 90proofprofessional
When we were kids my brother was often smart enough to get away with the crap he pulled. His problem was that over time he wanted everyone to know he was smart enough to get away with it, even if it meant telling on himself.
Gruber reminds me of my immature adolescent brother.
Gruber reminds me of my immature adolescent brother.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:22 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Yes, after I read this, obamacare could be seriously fricked.
You reap what you sow.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:23 pm to teke184
quote:
He claims in an amicus brief on the state exchanges that using the term "state exchange" was a typo and that all exchanges get subsidies.
Can you explain the significance of this?
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:27 pm to dewster
The lawsuit is over the legality of Obamacare subsidies, given that the language of the law only allows policies bought through "state exchanges" to qualify.
Given that about 30 states refused to build an exchange and made the Feds do it, policies in those states shouldn't be eligible for subsidies. That means buyers would have to pay the full amount of their policy instead of the subsidized amount shown to them by the Feds.
Without subsidies to get people to buy the policies, enrollment in ObamaCare craters and the whole system collapses by entering a death spiral.
Given that about 30 states refused to build an exchange and made the Feds do it, policies in those states shouldn't be eligible for subsidies. That means buyers would have to pay the full amount of their policy instead of the subsidized amount shown to them by the Feds.
Without subsidies to get people to buy the policies, enrollment in ObamaCare craters and the whole system collapses by entering a death spiral.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:33 pm to dewster
quote:
this time bragging how the Massachusetts health care system he helped design worked by ripping off millions of dollars from the federal government.
Well this should nip any RINO establishment thoughts in the bud of Romney running again in 2016.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:39 pm to teke184
quote:
Given that about 30 states refused to build an exchange
36 states.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:51 pm to navy
quote:And Washington is having a rash of hard-drive failures at rates never seen before!
Some are actively looking for it.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 2:56 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:It absolutely should in the pending case. The question is one of intent of the lawmakers. If they are actively being deceptive about their intended purpose of the law... how can one interpret the law accurately?
dishonesty in the law making process should not impact the courts one iota.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 4:41 pm to teke184
quote:
Without subsidies to get people to buy the policies, enrollment in ObamaCare craters and the whole system collapses by entering a death spiral.
Well that jackass really should have kept his mouth shut....
Posted on 11/14/14 at 7:47 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
dishonesty in the law making process should not impact the courts one iota.
Even if obama lied, it should have no bearing on the ruling by the courts. otherwise its clear the courts are completely corrupt. They are supposed to be above politics, not knuckle dragging like the rest.
Wait so an author of a bill who painstakingly lays out how every word and phrase was carefully crafted to lock people in and mislead should be of no relevance to a case where these people claim this was a simple 'typo'? Seriously? The Supreme Court no longer has to debate whether there was an intent to exclude citizens of states with no exchange - the dude laid it out for the world to hear and the 'political ramifications'. That is done.
Posted on 11/14/14 at 8:21 pm to Scruffy
Why couldn't these have come out before November 2012 
Posted on 11/14/14 at 10:06 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
Even if obama lied, it should have no bearing on the ruling by the courts. otherwise its clear the courts are completely corrupt. They are supposed to be above politics, not knuckle dragging like the rest.
In most appellate cases, courts generally only consider stuff on the record, i.e., that was introduced in the lower court.
But, the Supreme Court is a different animal entirely and can take Judicial notice of such things if they wish. Basically, the Supreme Court can pretty much do whatever the frick they want to if they have the necessary 4 or five votes depending on the situation.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 7:28 am to igoringa
quote:
Wait so an author of a bill who painstakingly lays out how every word and phrase was carefully crafted to lock people in and mislead should be of no relevance to a case where these people claim this was a simple 'typo'?
Stunning that they would make this argument - and proactively assert that SCOTUS is corrupt if they don't do what that administration wants.
Not POTUS, not Gruber, but SCOTUS would be corrupt ("utterly corrupt").
This post was edited on 11/15/14 at 7:28 am
Posted on 11/15/14 at 8:50 am to John McClane
quote:Too busy looking into Anne's horse and Mitt beating someone up in high school.
Why couldn't these have come out before November 2012
Oh, and car elevator.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 8:54 am to LSUgusto
The most horrible thing about all of this stuff coming out is that NOTHING will happen to anyone and NOTHING will change.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:51 am to sec13rowBBseat28
quote:
The most horrible thing about all of this stuff coming out is that NOTHING will happen to anyone and NOTHING will change.
I'm not so sure about that.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:56 am to dewster
All the recent revelations about how the goverment con the American people, should be enough to create a big backlash if not a revoulution, but it won't happen, the decades of brainwashing have been very effective.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:58 am to member12
Romney was governor of Massachusetts so I don't know how much these video would have helped Obama?
Still, this guy should be hung by his nuts. Idiot
Still, this guy should be hung by his nuts. Idiot
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News