This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
"There’s Going To Be Chaos" - What Is The Worst-Case Outcome Of Today's Supreme Court Obamacare Hearing
Today, for the second time since 2012, the fate of Obamacare lies in the hands of the Supreme Court, and like last time, it will likely be all about Justice John Roberts ' decision. Later today, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to Obamacare, and one that could potentially leave it gutted from an unexpected direction. As a result, nearly eight million Americans could lose their health insurance depending on how the Supreme Court interprets four words in the "Affordable" Care Act.
But while the law, or rather "tax", was already found to be constitutional in the Scotus 2012 ruling, the current case centers on whether, as many Republicans argue, one line in the law was intended to restrict subsidies to people who bought insurance through a state exchange or whether, as Democrats contend, that line was a simple oversight in the law’s drafting.
As Bloomberg adds, the new case is narrower, centering on the statute’s language: At issue is whether Obamacare can provide subsidies nationwide to people who buy insurance, or only to those in the states that have set up their own online marketplaces, known as exchanges.
Here are the four words that could make or break Obamacare:
The statute says people qualify for credits when they buy insurance on an exchange “established by the state.” Those four words matter because only about one-third of the states have set up exchanges, with the rest relying on the federal healthcare.gov system. The challengers contend that the people who buy on the federal exchange can’t claim the subsidies.
The group behind the suit, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, describes itself as an advocate for limited government and individual liberty. According to the Washington Post, the group’s financial supporters include companies tied to Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who fund conservative causes.
The institute represents four Virginia residents who say they don’t want to buy the insurance required under Obamacare. Should the court block the subsidies, the four say they would fall within an exception to the insurance mandate for people who can’t afford coverage. One lurking issue that may arise during argument is whether any of the four has suffered the type of legal injury that entitles them to sue.
As Bloomberg also notes, a decision against the Obama administration would wipe out the tax credits that make insurance affordable for millions of people under the law. It would also leave hospitals with billions of dollars in unpaid bills and potentially cause insurance markets to collapse.
“If the court rules for the challengers, there’s going to be chaos,” said Abbe Gluck, who teaches at Yale Law School and backs the administration in the case.
That may be a tad dramatic, but as the NYT breaks down, roughly 7.5 million people could lose their subsidies in 34 states (shown on the map below). . The status of people in three other states — Oregon, Nevada and New Mexico — is unclear because those states at one time intended to run their own marketplaces, but now rely on the federal government to manage them.
While it is difficult to handicap what the odds are of an adverse, if mostly for Obama's legacy, ruling, Reuters reports that "a growing number of U.S. patients and their doctors are already devising a Plan B in case they lose medical coverage, as even physicians who think the court will uphold the subsidies are gearing up for the worst. As a result, doctors are "dusting off playbooks they retired when Obamacare slashed the number of uninsured people."
From Reuters:
Interviews with doctors reached through professional groups show that they are lining up free clinics to care for patients with chronic illnesses, asking pharmaceutical companies to provide discounted drugs, and moving up preventive-care appointments and complicated procedures.
"We have to be able to navigate this on behalf of our patients if it comes about," said Dr. Jeff Huebner, a family physician in Madison, Wisconsin, one of the affected states.
Many providers as well as patients are unaware of the looming threat, but some physicians are already preparing for it.
Huebner adds that he "would advise patients in this boat to schedule a visit with their primary care provider as soon as they can" to set up "transition plans." Other doctors, such as pediatrician Marsha Raulerson in Brewton, Alabama has persuaded one drug company to provide an expensive asthma medication to one of her patients if she loses her insurance. "But after a few months you have to re-apply" and show that the patient is still unable to afford medication, Raulerson said. "It's not an easy process, especially if you have to do it for a lot of patients." She is also stockpiling as many free samples as she can.
Dr. Robert Wergin, a primary care physician in Milford, Nebraska, is scrambling to locate labs and imaging centers that offer the lowest prices for blood tests, X-rays and MRIs.
"Around here, people feel responsible for their bills and I'm not sure they would come in if they lost insurance and couldn't pay," Wergin said.
In retrospect, perhaps chaos is not all that dramatic:
Yolanda Diaz, 27, is one of them. A single mother of two, she suffers from occasional blackouts that last several minutes. She cannot afford the full premium on her wages as a pantry manager at Brevard County, Florida, community center so she pays $74.95 a month and the rest is covered by a $205 Obamacare subsidy.
Her coverage began this month, Diaz said, and the first thing she did was make appointments for an MRI and CT scans in hopes of identifying the cause of the blackouts.
"I would hate to have to go to the ER, but if the subsidies get taken away I don't know what I'll do," she said. U.S. law requires hospitals to treat all emergency cases regardless of ability to pay, so many uninsured patients seek care there.
Of those expected to be priced out of insurance in case of unfavorable ruling, the Urban Institute estimated 81 percent are, like Diaz, employed full- or part-time.
To be sure, the Obama administration is confident the worst will not come to pass: it contends that the phrase is a “term of art,” and says that other parts of the law show that there is no distinction between federal and state run exchanges.
“If you look at the law, if you look at the testimony of those who were involved in the law, including some of the opponents of the law, the understanding was that people who joined the federal exchange were going to be able to access tax credits,” President Obama said in an interview with Reuters. “And there’s in our view not a plausible legal basis for striking it down.”
Enter Plan B, or lack thereof (just like the ECB, which as we all know lied to Zero Hedge that it didn't have a Plan B on Greece, when it in fact, only it called it a Plan Z):
The Obama Administration has stated it has no backup plan ready if the Supreme Court rules against it. “If they rule against us, we’ll have to take a look at what our options are,” Obama said recently. “But I’m not going to anticipate that. I’m not going to anticipate bad law.”
Republicans on the other hand, are eager to show they have a Plan B. In the past two days, lawmakers from the House and the Senate have said they’re in the process of working on alternatives to the law, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Reps. Paul Ryan, John Kline and Fred Upton wrote in the Wall Street Journal, they’re proposing an “off-ramp out of Obamacare,” that would allow states to opt-out of insurance mandates and offer options for those who can’t otherwise insurance. Sens. Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander and John Barrasso wrote in the Washington Post, they too would help those who can’t afford coverage during a “transitional period” and let states create alternative marketplaces.
So as we head into today's oral argument, much is once again at stake. For those seeking further detail, here is some additional Q&A on the outcome courtesy of Bloomberg:
1. What is the administration’s argument?
The administration says the disputed phrase is a term of art that includes a federally facilitated exchange. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli urges the court to look beyond the “established by the state” wording to the rest of the act and its broad purpose of providing coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans.
Verrilli says Congress designed the law with the goal of offering tax credits nationwide and argues that no member of Congress suggested otherwise during the debate over the measure, which is President Barack Obama’s biggest legislative initiative.
2. What will happen if the court rules for the plaintiffs?
Prepare for falling dominoes. Within a matter of weeks, the healthcare.gov system would have to stop providing tax credits for an estimated 7.5 million Americans in the 34 states that never authorized their own exchanges. Many of those people would probably find premiums unaffordable without the subsidies and would drop their coverage, boosting the ranks of the uninsured.
Yet those who are sick and need insurance would probably try to hang onto their coverage, as healthy people dropped out. Insurers call this phenomenon “adverse selection,” and say it inevitably results in premiums spiraling upward. The Urban Institute estimates that premiums would increase by 35 percent, on average.
Doctors and hospitals, faced with more uninsured patients, would be forced to provide more uncompensated care. If they try to make up for the losses by charging commercial insurers higher prices, that would raise health-care costs for everyone.
Finally, the law’s requirement that employers provide insurance to their workers would be gutted in states where subsidies aren’t legal. Penalties on employers for not providing coverage are triggered when their workers receive a subsidy for an Obamacare plan; without subsidies, there’s no penalty.
3. How would the federal government and states respond?
It’s unclear. Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, has said his party will design a “bridge out of Obamacare” for people in states affected by the ruling. There’s no agreement among Republicans on how such a policy would work.
States could respond by simply setting up their own exchanges. The Obama administration could make that easier, for example by letting them use healthcare.gov to sell insurance online.
However, the U.S. health secretary, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, said in a Feb. 24 letter to Congress that the administration couldn’t do much on its own.
“We know of no administrative actions that could, and therefore we have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision,” she wrote.
4. What is corporate America’s take on the case?
The hospital and health-insurance industries are backing the administration. That includes HCA Holdings Inc., the hospital chain that is the nation’s largest private health-care provider. Trade groups for the hospital and health-insurance industries are also urging the court to back nationwide subsidies.
5. Who holds the pivotal vote?
The most likely candidate is Chief Justice John Roberts. He cast the decisive vote in 2012, joining the court’s four Democratic-appointed justices to uphold the core of the law. The other four Republican appointees voted to invalidate the entire measure, saying Congress exceeded its authority.
Opponents of Obamacare accused Roberts, normally the leader of the court’s conservative wing, of betrayal. Those criticisms escalated after CBS News reported that the chief justice first voted against the administration and then switched sides.
6. Which way is Roberts likely to go?
Both sides can find reasons for hope. Roberts is no stickler for statutory wording. He reads laws against the backdrop of institutional principles that Gluck says might cut in the administration’s favor, including deference to the views of administrative agencies.
In a 2009 case involving the Voting Rights Act, as well as the 2012 health-care decision, Roberts deviated from what he said was the most natural reading of a law to avoid declaring it unconstitutional.
“The chief is an institutionalist,” Gluck said. “He’s not a hyper-literalist.”
Jonathan Adler, a law professor who was one of the first to make the case against nationwide subsidies, says Roberts is more inclined to adhere to a statute’s wording in non-constitutional cases.
“The chief certainly is willing to bend a statute in order to avoid declaring a statute unconstitutional, but that’s not at issue here,” said Adler, who teaches at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
One other factor: As chief justice, Roberts has always kept one eye on the court’s institutional integrity. One theory is that he was driven in 2012 by concern that a ruling striking down the law would be seen as a political decision.
If true, that thinking might suggest another Roberts vote in favor of the administration and another close call for Obamacare.
* * *
Finally, here is some visual detail courtesy of the NYT:
How would insurance coverage change?
The effect of a court decision would not be limited to the people currently receiving subsidies in the federal marketplaces. People who buy their own health insurance in those states, even without subsidies, could be affected, because rates would increase if insurance pools become older and less healthy. Estimates from the Urban Institute prepared for The New York Times show how a post-King world would look compared with the current trajectory for the Affordable Care Act — or if the health law had never passed.

Which groups would be most affected?
The people who would lose their insurance are more likely to be white, high-school graduates, employed and from the South.
What about the rest of the states?
States that run their own insurance marketplaces would be unaffected by a court ruling, meaning a widening gap between insurance coverage in the two groups of states. The Urban Institute estimated the outcome for federal and state-run marketplaces by 2016.
How will the states react?
Under any court ruling, states will have the power to restore their residents’ subsidies if they establish their own exchanges. It would not be easy, but some states face more hurdles than others. Here is a look at the status of the states that could be affected. Some have already begun doing the work of building exchanges. Some have signaled weak interest and taken little action. Others have already set up legal impediments.
- 57112 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -






gut the fucker
"Dr. Robert Wergin, a primary care physician in Milford, Nebraska, is scrambling to locate labs and imaging centers that offer the lowest prices for blood tests, X-rays and MRIs."
Is this an admission that doctors don't normally do this? Because it's OPM, perhaps?
It's a SUCKER'S BET to naively believe that Roberts upsets the ObamaCare Cart.
He didn't before on a much stronger case, and he certainly won't now.
Help me out here, is this the bread or the circus?
Neither. Pre-staged Kabuki Theater.
Professor Gruber explaining that this "crisis" was purposely written into the law to cause political back lash against states that did not implement their state based exchanges
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GtnEmPXEpr0#t=1889
Agreed. Absolutely Kabuki Theatre. Even if the Supreme Court strikes down the "federal exchange subsidy" the R's in Congress will line up and immediately pass a bill amending the language to offer subsidies through federal exchanges.
The line would be "R's are denying access to affordable health care for millions of people- people who already had it since the passage of the ACA." They'll cave to that. What's more, they will get NOTHING in return for caving, either. NOTHING.
This is, if possible, an even bigger time-waster issue than daily articles about Greece.
I should also point out that big donors to the R's WANT the ACA to live, and for single-payer government health care to eventually take it's place. They are large business owners who salivate at the idea of off-loading employee health care costs to the government.
Who thinks the Supreme Court will ever vote against the powers of the state?
Just fully implement the motherfucker already so that we can watch the law repeal itself. The people who support this shit aren't going to have the opportunity to learn until they see it in its full glory.
The Supreme Courts job is not to interpret laws nor to redefine words. Their job is to enforce the Constitution as it is written. We dont need any fucking more of reading between the lines by the fucktards in the Federal Government.
They have pictures of Roberts with boys and farm animals
Case closed!
That is exactly it. He was willing to call somehting a tax covered by the 16th amendment when it clearly is not. So he will undoubtedly be able to say that they meant to include the federal exchanges for the subsidies. And if there were any doubt it is also obvious as you say that Obummer has something serious on Roberts. I think it is clear Roberts was visited by men wearing dark sunglasses driving shiny black suvs with untraceable plates just prior to the original ACA ruling. Could be boys and farm animals or it could be something else but it is definitely something.
In the same stroke, by declaring the penalties as taxes, Roberts made the ACA unconstitutional yet another way: Revenue bills can only originate in the House, not in the Senate. The ACA language originates 100% from the Senate.
We are in a post Constitutional regime since some time now. It's just more blatant now. All too soon it will be guns-in-your-face blatant, the guards against tyranny having been abandoned.
They haven't abandoned it, they have just started to remove the curtains about how is really in control here, and who has been in control for over a 100 years.
The US has never been free, and that is what they will start making more obvious as time goes along.
Yes, I'd like to hear about other taxes that I can end up getting subsidized for.
Or are they saying that it's a stinking pot of fish, but now that it's in the kitchen we must make soup out of it??
This is how they fuck us each and every time. They pass some bullshit bill that gets implemented that promises shit it can't deliver and then, once they have the poor dears helpless and defenseless we are stuck. They have done it to us with every entitlement from social security on. Even the blatant ignoring of immigration law has allowed millions of "Oppressed" individuals to live amongst us while suffering the lack of rights afforded (theoretically) to all Americans. So now we will have to make them legal, pay them unearned income tax credits (because they are poor) and eventually give them voting rights. They fuck us at every turn creating entire groups of "entitled" that we must labor to support. Now we can get rid of Obamacare because black out Nancy will lose her coverage.
ACA is about population control, nothing else.
Their intention is to make life so expensive that few can have children, and even fewer can survive with enough free time to oppose them. Them being the One Worlder crowd that is in suppor of the UN's program for population control. Every country that let's the UN freely has suffered from the same disease of self-destruction.
That's patently false... if you don't make enough money, then you get free healthcare... the entire world over, money never stops people from having children. Granted, we have to import most of ours in the first world given declining population rates, but someone will always be there to fill the void.
Roberts is reputed to be on medication for epilepsy. These drugs can cause mental problems and forgetfulness. If true, he should not be allowed to serve. Why he is there causing me to really question what is going on here, especially as a swing vote.
Miffed
Interesting, didn't know that. Those walgreen's prescriptions could get, er, 'enhanced' by men in unmarked SUVs as well.
Man, for a so-called conservative, they're not really getting their money's worth (well, I suppose *someone* is...)
He could be faking it so he doesn't have to sit through a Ginsburg opinion....
He's there because he's captured and will do what he's told to do.
"Just fully implement the motherfucker already so that we can watch the law repeal itself."
Holy shit-- are you high??? When in the history of the universe did a gigantic government welfare program get repealed once it had entrenched itself??
I'll give you a hint, the answer starts with "N" and ends with "ever".
It will crash the medical system. Obamacare will repeal itself because cannot work. Lots of government programs have repealed themselves, normally in the form of a crashed government. Just ask the Romans.
"I'll give you a hint, the answer starts with "N" and ends with "ever""
Exactly. SCOTUS is part of the government. Anyone actually think they believe in smaller government and more liberty? HA HA HA!! They all worship at the altar of big government---rah rah rah----AMERICA!! Its a statist's wet dream come true!!
The impossible USSR took 70 years to play out. Can you hold out? Even your kids will be elderly in 70 years.
This isn't going to take 70 years to play out from this point on. It'll take at most, a decade, and that's assuming very ideal conditions. It took 70 years for the USSR to overextend itself financially. Since Bretton Woods, it has taken the US about 70 years to overextend itself financially too. We're in the endgame now. Either the US pulls back and greatly simplifies itself, or it goes away. This is going to go on like it can never end, then it is abruptly going to happen so fast that almost nobody will see it coming. We may or may not survive the next financial crisis, and if we do, we won't survive the one after that.
Prohibition repealed itself because everyone just drank anyway. I suspect you are correct.
This status quo should have unravelled 50 yrs ago yet here it is. I too think it will all come crashing down, and maybe soon, but it's foolish to assume that it can't go on for the next 50 years (barring the loss of a major war at home).
TLDR: Long term, it WILL all fall apart.
Short term, it can go on forever with can-kicking and continuously degrading standard of living.
It was sugessted somewhere that an annual sunset for five years before a regulation or law is permanent would be effective rein on the unstable branches of government.
Decades or even centuries of somewhat stable, miserable tyranny could also result. There is no guarantee government will not just take what it needs and wants in the name of national security, emergency, shared sacrifice. They are very organized and motivated to keep the tax farm serving their needs.
But the cries from unfulfilled utopian dreams will drive us to suicide.
Yep. There is nothing more permanent than a temporary government program.
You got that right.
I have one friend (unemployed) that thinks it's great. Another that's getting screwed 9 ways to Sunday on premiums for rotten coverage.
You should've seen the sparks fly at a dinner gathering.
IMO, it won't be stricken down. SCOTUS bought & paid for.
In other news, listening to Christopher Bollyn yesterday, didja know ol' yeller is related to the scum that runs the security at airports & WTC?
It's a big club and we ain't in it.
Even though Chief Justice Roberts now knows, after the fact, that he and everyone in this country were lied to about Obamacare, thanks to John Gruber, he's still going to fold like a cheap suit...watch. He will legislate from the bench instead of interpreting the law how it was written and letting Congress doi its job. He's cut from the same cloth as Obama....they both think of themselve as Kings.
It is great for those getting subsidized. Its those who are not, those who have to pay for the free rides, that are getting totally fucked. But hey, in a good collectivist society, if our hearts were pure, we would jump at the chance to pay the way for those less fortunate. Unfortunately its like banging pots and pans around a bunch of zombies. There not going to be satified until they have eaten you...and then not even then.
We all know how this ends.
New word "Tyrannian's"
Yup Willy, that fucking club.... You gotta have money and lots of it to get in the door. Oh, and being a member of the tribe or an especially good goyim ass licker for that tribe would qualify you as well.
Niggers better look out.
Threats to the president, even oblique ones like this, are taken seriously stoploss.
As a result, nearly eight million Americans could lose their right to be raped by an industry run by crooks and parasites.
FIFY.
And don't forget to account for those credits properly on your tax return or NO REFUND FOR YOU!!!
Complexity increases until the reset comes. Hope it is soon.
Has there been a day in recent memory that the "R's" haven't caved?
Any tax is subject to the rules of budget reconciliation if I recall (The second of Bush's tax cuts was passed this way by a vote of 51-50 with Cheney casting the deciding vote as VP).
The "R's" in the Senate could do this even more effectively now that they have a majority in the Senate, but since they haven't gone that route, you know it is all smoke and mirrors...
I do however see Pelosi playing the role of Yokai tsuchigumo in all future Kabuki congressional productions...
"affordable" means I'm paying lots more so barry can hand the FSA free health care.
@NO DEBT you are absolutly right about this not changing anything. Once a govt program like this is established, it NEVER goes away. It only grows bigger. Now that it exists, all that you would hear about is how republicans 'took away access to affordable healthcare for millions of middle class americans' and thats all people would hear or remember. (personally, i always thought being 'middle class' meant having some kind of non-govt subsidized obamacare type health insurance, if you chose to buy it or got it through your employer). And republicans would fear the consequences of repealing this nonsense come election time, and since thats all any of those whores care about it anyway, this is going no where. Obamacare is here to stay, might as well accept it. Just like social security, medicare, and medicaid...
Agreed.
On a side note..... that's why I'm voting straight Democrat ticket from now on. I'm just voting for the party I think will run this thing up on the rocks as fast as possible. They get their way no matter what, but they totally SUCK at implementing or managing things, at least in comparison to the Rs. Those are the people I want in charge- clueless morons who've never built or managed anything in their life.
Yeah lets turn the republic into a decaying banana dictatorship faster.
i dont blame you. the world is truly upside down. i feel like im taking crazy pills.
In talking with a couple of Drs., they too think this leads to single payer.
Long SCI.
They've openly said as much. "People in those states should be punished for not electing [democrat] candidates who would have done it properly." -subscribers to the party of feelings.
In the past 15 years the court has consistently gone with the path of least resistance, avoiding upsetting the status quo even when the letter of the law is clear to a novice. A federal exchange would have been another step to overcome when passing this un-transparent abomination of a bill so of course it got challenged constitutionally. Now our third branch of government can debate it behind closed doors, write a short explanation and wash their hands of it forever. Something that legislatively would have been a hurdle is dealt with and none of the responsible parties are ever held to task for their actions.
Brilliant move by the insurance companies who wrote the thing.
The hospital and health-insurance industries are backing the administration.
that's all you need to know
Help me out here. If the federal government argues that the PPACA allows them to set up federal exchanges when the states decline, and give out subsidies in those federal exchanges, why did they even bother to offer money to set up state exchanges? They could have just made it a federal program?
And what did the states gain by setting up their own exchanges and provide sunsidies if the federal government could do the same?
so they can hire 50,000 more useless dipshits to sit around and watch porn all day on their govt computers???? just guessing here....
Harry,
They wanted to create political back lashes against "red states" that did not want to participate and to be forced to participate. It wasn't about cost. It was about forced participation.
So the Federal Government has leverage over the States that don't tow the line.
Think Education Funding and Highway Funding that is denied to States who don't follow New Rome's dictates.
The D states want more permanent civil servant bureaucrats voting D and contributing D locally so that the state and local democrat machines benefit maximally from that sweet public sector union cash.
Neither. Its the vomitorium after the bread and circuses.
It doesn't take a law degree to know that none of this is constitutional. Curtains up.
if you think that matters at all, talk to all those dead brown people in the countries we are bombing and havent declared war on
The ACA is a heavy bombing campaign intended to degrade and destroy the Constitution and replace the federal republic with a pervasive central government that can do some serious transforming, as every control freak statist who has ever lived so fervently wished.
Well, if you read the article, the corrupt judges already found the ObamaCare tax to be constitutional. All they're deciding this time is whether they're obligated to provide service in return. It is actually in their best interest that they don't.
Taxation - check.
Representation - uncheck.
Bohenr is going to get Obamacare repealed… Just a little more time, guys. Just a little more time….
After yesterday, Boehner needs to wipe off his chin.
pods
That Scum Fuck Scum is the reason it wasn't repealed in the first place. The Insurance industry is his biggest contributor.
Trippin' over your expletives there, and I like it.
Will he get it repealed before or after he is no longer orange?
TIS absolutely this will not end anything if Roberts has to rewrite the whole damn thing he will. None of this ends through a function of law, we need to go through the crucible of the full blown police state first and emerge hopefully somewhat intact but much poorer and hopefully more free. There will be much less of us unfortunately. Find your center, prepare the best you can for the storm will come eventually.
You already in a police state. Your physician is required by the central government to ask if you have guns. The federal government knows who has guns and the thoughts that go along with them. They hoover up all related transactions with ease and routinely keep firearms purchase and firearms related records in direct violation of the law. The bureaucracy will protect itself.
Bingo, it is an admission.
It's not healthcare, its an insurance racket. Everything is insanely priced, but we can't even KNOW the price until after the care.
Every ache, pain and cold is now a financial decision as co pays and deductibles are through the roof. And prices never stop rising and care is shit.
Insurance wrote the laws. They profit. Insurance isn't in the business to pay claims, its to keep premiums.
What a fucking disgrace.
Take everybody's sickness and stuff it into the Wall Street model of max profit for a few at any cost, lathered in fraud where NOBODY ever gets caught. Then actually having the gall to use the words "care" and "affordable" to dscribe it, while at the same time making it against the so-called "law" to not participate.
pretty solid post right there - you say more in a few sentences than most of these articles and graphs say in pages... i don't agree with people trading in these markets at all, but it's dang sure not my job to stand in judgement, you guys really need to minimize your risks moving forward if you're still in - and be prepared to help your fellow man if you can ... things are gonna start getting real interesting, pretty much immediately
Yes, its what socialism is all about...wipe out competition and guarantee profits for your Oligarch friends as you pretend to care about the little people...
"...wipe out competition and guarantee profits for your Oligarch friends as you pretend to care about the little people..."
Yes. In the end, that's what it all comes down to. That's the real world implemntation of socialism.
Well said.
Off-shoring, wage stagnation for those with a job, and then this monstrosity pretending that we can all afford gold plated healthcare at solid gold prices. The illusion that everybody takes a hit, but not the healthcare providers. F*ckin' racket.
I decided to get a physical on Monday. One of the questions that my doctor was REQUIRED to ask was this: "Do you have a gun in your home?" I told him that I didn't see how that related to my health/physical so I'll just say no.
That was not health care. That was government intrusion into my constitutionally protected personal life via my doctor. That is Obamacare - politics, not health care.
Who could imagine they'd give us so many ways to hate it?
I was asked that at a vascectomy appointment.
I looked at the nurse and asked how bad is this guy?
Then I told her I was not answering that question. Of course, there is a box for that too.
pods
Was that box labelled "terrorist"?
i wouldn't argue with them or question it, just tell them "no, i don't like guns, they are dangerous". no reason to give them something else to put in your 'permanent file" I already regret opening my mouth and calling their vaccines poison when the doctor asked why i didnt want my 10 pound baby to get 5 shots on his 8 week birthday. All that HIPAA privacy agreement is bullshit, it really has the opposite effect. It means any of these alphabet agencies can access your records for any reason any time, including any comments you may have made about these fucking questions they now ask you. I didn't vote for rick scott in FL because he is a fucking scum bag, but I will give him credit for not allowing doctors in FL to ask that question
It appears that the Doctors must now use electronic medical record keeping so that whatever information they collect goes into the big pool of information.
Should've asked him, "the one for killing for the one for fun"?
Ask him if he exercises freedom of speech or religion in his home, or lets cops search person and premises, or quarters troops, or wants to be forced to self-incriminate, forgoing a jury trial and so on.
@CAC: "That was not health care. That was government intrusion into my constitutionally protected personal life via my doctor. That is Obamacare - politics, not health care."
Same with the IRS: an intrusive, overreaching system of information gathering and control masquerading as a tax collection agency. The IRS is about snooping and behavior modification, not taxation.
Do you REALLY want to protect yourself from medical bills?
Medical insurance was not originally designed to keep you healthy, despite what Obamaganda tells you.
Medical insurance was designed to PROTECT YOU FINANCIALLY in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury.
Under Obamacare, a bronze plan is a ticket to siezure of all your assets, your house, car, investments, etc. So is a silver plan, and in many cases a gold plan. Pay and get fucked, that's what Obamacare is really all about.
If you really want protection against medical bills, get a DAPT (Domestic Asset Protection Trust) In Nevada, Utah, or South Dakota.
What do they mean "There's going to be chaos" ? It's been utter chaos ever since Pelosi banged her gavel after passing the bill so she could see what was in it.
Exactly my reaction when I read that.
In the future, can you please NOT use Pelosi and "banged" in the same sentence.
Thanks,
Everyone
I paid the $1000 bucks tax penalty for not having insurance, still cheaper than getting insurance that won't pony up a dime till you hit 5K deductible.
As usual, Florida is in the forefront of grabbing any federal money for health care. Cash is king in Florida, not political blather about Democratic or Republican crooks.
thats the understatement of the day right there. did you see who we had running against each other for governor down here? disgusting
I've never understood the Supreme Court's findings of ObamaCare as a TAX, where all tax bills are required to originate in the House and not the Senate. ObamaCare originated in the Senate. This is basic Constitutional Law and shows how corrupt the Supreme Court has become.
"It is not just that the intensely unpopular Obamacare was unconstitutional as fraudulently portrayed by the president and congressional Democrats who strong-armed and pot-sweetened its way to passage. It is that Obamacare is unconstitutional as rewritten by Roberts. It is a violation of the Origination Clause — not only as I have expansively construed it, but even under Matt’s narrow interpretation of the Clause."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360460/obamacares-unconstitutional..."
..absolutley "gut the fucker..." or at the very least change the name to reflect what is truly is the "unaffordable care act"....
Insurance companies reaping windfall profits with 2-4x i ncreases in premiums, deductibles up to $12K and tighter/more restrictive coverages.
Hospital bureqcracies reaping windfall profits by buying up primary care practicies and "encouraging" them to refer into their behemoth bureacratic impersonal systems where procedures and tests cost 5-10X more than when performed in an office or outpatient setting....
This is all about enriching the big bureaucratic insurance companies and hospitals at the expense of patients getting reasonably priced health care efficiently. If you doubt these words, get an MRI in the hospital then get an MRI in an outpatient imaging facility not affiliated with a hospital and compare the bills. Then go to the ER for a cold then go to your primary care office then compare the bills.....
today's hearing? I'm sure Roberts will rule that all undocumented citizens should be provided with free goverment healthcare at my expense, and granted immediate legal citizenship, the right to vote, a free house, a free obama phone, a drivers license and an EBT card.
we're takin this land o' the free a little too literally
No. It's not free for you and me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9p8LXD5UDs
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=blue+dress&tbm=nws
I don't see how SCOTUS rules for the Obama admin, on the merits at least. There was explicit discussion of the meaning of those words by the people who crafted the law, saying it was intentional to leave out residents of states without a state-specific exchange, as a mechanism for coercing the states into setting up those exchanges. There's no way to weasel out of that - though I do not put a "oh look squirrel" type of decision out of the realm of practical possibilities.
You have to look at it like they do:
What is best for them. And by THEM, I mean government.
pods
And therein lies the fatal flaw of the United States Constitution. How can one seriously expect a federal judicial apparatus like the Supreme Court to adjudicate fairly an issue/problem the States may have with the same Federal government of which it is a member?
Those assholes know who butters thier bread.
here I found the source. Remember this guy, the "architect of Obamacare"?
Jonathan Gruber: States Which Do Not Set Up an Exchange Do Not Get Tax Subsidies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rttqLh12U
Thank you. That fucker Gruber who designed the stupid thing said publicly on many occasions that the subsidy is only paid to states that set up the exchanges - it was designed as a stick to compel states to set them up.
.... sand paper their skin off and bury em in salt.... all the bastards that enabled this POS legislation...
"We have to pass it to find out what's in it." Nancy botoxplastic face Peloshit
Government will never back track on its own steps. Never.
You can't challenge a king. You have to overthrow them.
Especialy when the king is a bankster, and gets a puppet to wear the crown.
Yes, I want ACA destroyed with NOTHING to take it's place. Bring on the fucking chaos you fucking morons.
"fucking chaos" = "market pricing"
quelle horreur!
Agreed. The chaos is inevitable - so lets get on with it before i get too old.
.
I dont want my friends pushing me thru the forest in a wheelchair when im all useless...and if that does happen, just let me be with a few grenades and park me behind a bush.
Lmao, best post I've read in a long time.
"just let me be with a few grenades and park me behind a bush"
Which Bush do you prefer ?
HW or W?
if he's really looking ahead...
jeb
"Yes, I want ACA destroyed with NOTHING to take it's place. Bring on the fucking chaos you fucking morons."
Has any government program been dismantled...EVER?
Glass-Steagall?
Whatever it is that Roberts will want to write as a decision will be influenced by the contents in the manila envelope left at his doorstep sometime earlier in the week.
The Koch Brothers' pockets are deep enough. Hopefully Roberts will rule to gut ObamaCare as the Koch Brothers want and I also want.
Fuck ObamaCare!!! Fuck the Republicans that FUNDED IT. Fuck the Democrats who voted it in. Fuck them all...all of them.
"The Koch Brothers?" LOL!!!
(BTW - It is Koch brothers. They are two politically libertarian brothers. They are not a brand name - Koch Brothers. Please at least have a partial understanding of the terms that you use. Yeesh...)
Ooooooh, pedanticism!
Oh... VERY big word... I'm proud of you, snowflake! Gold star for you today.
Good attempt at distraction because ofmy incorrect use of a capital letter.
English was my weakest subject. I still can improve.
So back to the point.
FUCK OBAMACARE.
FUCK THE NSA.
...and fuck you.
"...and fuck you."
Quite the interesting offer. But, I will politely decline. Thank you for offering.
The libertarian Koch brothers contributions are like mild squalls amidst the cat 5 hurricane of statist and crony capitalist cash flows the Democrats are trying to misdirect us from, with their regular 5 Minutes Hate exclusively about these two relatively small players. It's pure Alinsky isolation and demonization, serving radical destructive tyrannical ends. Ask anyone parroting the anti-Koch propaganda if they can express the contribution amounts in percentages relative to those of public sector unions, financial businesses, insurance companies. Ahem.
The Koch Brothers are, for the moment, an Amurican cultural icon... even, yea, a shibboleth.
Therefore the Big B is appropriate usage, at least for all the cool kidz.
Whatever it is that Roberts will want to write as a decision will be influenced by the contents in the manila envelope left at his doorstep sometime earlier in the week.
Mrs Roberts: "Honey, did you order a new nailgun? No? Well one came for you this morning."
Big envelope=good job....little envelope=you voted wrong (dont mind the white powdery substance from Fort Detrick)
Like it matters. The SC wrote the damn law when they "interpreted" the penalty to be a direct, unapportioned tax. Which is supposed to be unconsitutional.
They should all be hung after a guilty verdict by a jury of their peers.
The only reason we are debating this new nuance is because they broke the law before.
pods
Also, if it is a revenue bill, it must originate in the House. The ACA text is 100% Senate, a result of the wild shenanigans they had to pull to pass it.
Fuck all the laws. Government as a concept is itself immoral. Legality is irrelevant.
As evidenced by rampant criminality masquerading as a responsible social system.
Same as it ever was.
It was ruled a tax. They'll never get rid of it. Besides if they actually do shit can it, the Insurance companies have a bail out already written into the existing "law". So you know where that's going...
the most beautiful thing-if you're an insurance co. that is- about that "tax" -is who exactly is going to force a set benefits actually be delivered for a "tax"? --
So the Executive and Judicial branches of government should usurp the job of the Legislative branch?
The legislative branch has faded into insignificance. The US should save some money and disband Congress. They never do anything useful beyond naming post offices anyway. Then the SCOTUS can be disbanded too, and all the rest of the Federal courts. All Hail Obama. Seig Heil!
Let's hold off on that idea until after I become President :-P
If Florida had access to free money like Jew York via The Fed and Wall Street, they wouldn't have a problem either...
Look "folks", a higher standard of living requires real resources and energy.
There will be "chaos" regardless, as there simply is no political, monetary, fiscal, or economic "solution" to resource scarcity.
Devolution...
WARNING! Gross oversimplification alert! Sorry, but the law only needs to be judged on its constitutional merit and, as far as this citizen is concerned, they can toss the whole law as the "legislation" is ipso facto unconstitutional!
SCOTUS..........buncha corporate whores
Whatever decision decides things not break today, thats the decision.
I was at ER Friday evening because my son broke his arm. While admitting at the reception desk they asked the couple in front of me who there insurance was through and in broken English they said We have Obama. I just about checked myself in for nausea.
First of all Roberts is a sell out so I don't expect any surprises, and secondly what is not being discussed is the fact that Roberts ruling on Zerocare has caused a constitutional crisis when he declared it a tax. Only CONgress has the power to declare taxes. No other branch of government has that authority.
Edit: This is all by design BTW. This was supposed to fail so we embrace the only alternative left.... the single payer system.
Tell that to el presidente ... http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/03/02/obama-very-interested-in-raising-taxes-through-executive-action-n1964629
Well we all know that the CONstitution means nothing to these guys and Boner sure isn't going to try and stop him.
Boner needs to be removed forcefully from his speakership at the very least. He's the worst "opposition" leader in my lifetime and it's not even close.
DR. Roberts is not a "sell out". He was correct. The ACA along with every other federal entitlement falls under the Social Security Act. This is how the (unconstitutional) scam works. Peddle back to the New Deal/ great depression era. The feds create the SS Act. Look to the language. It involved 2 key componants. "unemployment" and "old Age survivor" insurance. Both of these elements according to the courts are STATE POLICE POWERS. So the States hand the feds their police powers while the feds create a PRIVILEGE. But the feds do NOT possess State police powers. What they do possess is the FEDERAL TAXING POWER. And yes, the legislative branch can TAX the privileges it creates. Here these entitlement are extraordinary protections paid for with money from the public treasury. The very basis of the "taxable privilege". The States once handing over police powers are now PRE EMPTED for purposes of taxation (privilege/excise) and administrative control (IRS). See the Supremacy clause
As confirmed by the courts. The SS ACT required State/ federal cooperation. For those that have no SS#, they cannot collect SS, medicare, food stamps, or Abama Care. This also confirmed by the courts. The thing I find interesting is that if one is NOT part of the sytem, they are not liable to pay any excise taxes that fall under the umbrella of the Social Security Act. You cannot file a tax return (1040) without a tax ID number. For a US citizen, that is exclusively an SS #. You cannot petition the US tax court without an SS #.
What we have here is the greatest tax increase in the history of the US. Notice that failure to obtain insurance results in a greater tax burden. Most people derive income from employment. The excise applied via the ACT uses the wage (property) as a unit of measurement to calculate the indirect excise. Moreover, and under separation of powers, the taxing power is an exclusive function of the legislative branch therefore the amount of the excise cannot be controlled by the courts. Translated: The feds have the unrestrained power to take 100% of what you earn via witholding and leave you with nothing. That fact that no one would show up for work under those circumstances is irrelevent.
The US is fucked. With federal debt and future entitlement obligations now north of 100 trillion, the tax burden on the remaining working class will only get worse. Obama care is but a small example of what is to come.
Prepare for tax revolt, collapse of commerce, and civil war compounded by reinstatement of the draft due to WWIII. This is no accident.
just a dog and pony show.....nothing will change
Please tell me how my paying $1162.80 for Bronze ObamaCare plan (family) per month, with a $6K deductible is supposed to be affordable?
And no, I don't qualify for (redistribution of wealth) subsidies.
Shelling out $20,000 per year for absolutely nothing would be a very poor business decision.
Fact is, the problem is the HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES, which are now IN BED WITH the Federal Government.
Get rid of the HIC's and let's pay our doctors CASH upon checkout. Period.
Please tell me where they get off reaching into your bank account and STEALING from you a penalty payment if you tell them to shove off. Being FORCED into paying corporate money grubbing insurance companies iS NOT FREEDOM! They stole our liberty pure and simple. I am not happy, the gov and insurance companies stole my happiness. Dirty rotten mutherfvkers all of them.
Pay the doc with what money? Most people don't have it. Health care is an issue I see no non-catastrophic solution to... the entrenched interests that benefit from the present state of affairs are too powerful. Basically a lot of people are going to die needlessly before this gets sorted.
The Dread Pirate Roberts will decide using the same criteria he used in the first case that found the Insurance Relief and Profit Protection Act (AKA Obamacare) to be constitutional. Namely, he will look to see what maximizes the profits of the insurance companies. Same as before. As you know, he spent his career as a corporate lawyer before coming to the court.