This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -






obamacare is nothing but a scam to defraud tax payers ... when discussion for obamacare began the key aspect was to how to reign in the rising cost of healthcare ... when obamacare was enacted the answer was to put the entire burden of accelarating healthcare cost on the shoulders of tax payers ... it is a scam like the entire obama presidency.
A scam, yes. But it was a scam that also helped get the GOP off the hook for doing all that "reigning in of healthcare costs". I hope they understand this.
Once they succeed in killing off the ACA, they will completely OWN the issue. Are they willing to take this on? Do they have a plan? Are they going to take on the big insurers, the providers? How will they reduce the costs?
They better, because if costs keep rising AFTER Obamacare, they will have a lot of explaining to do to all their pissed-off voters who thought their costs would go DOWN with the death of the ACA...You spent 6 years convincing them those increases were a direct result of the ACA, you'd better provide some visible results here. once you get rid of it.
How come chaos, the current one caused by this abomination, was never a consideration when this boondoggle was foisted on us?
Perhaps chaos is just what they, TPTB, want: all the more reason to strip US citizens of their few remaining freedoms.
I just wonder if all those on this site and others, who huff and puff about the illegality of the current government, would take the opportunity afforded by real chaos to go out and do something about those who saddled us with it. Is anyone really willing to stand up for liberty and fire the next "shot heard 'round the world"?
It is 'The Affordable Care Tax Act' and it should always be referred to as such in the fucking media. It can only be a tax, as determined by the Supremes. To continue to double-speak it as 'ObombaCare' is like referring to rape as 'Reluctant Sexual Partnering'.
This argument is a distraction...Is it a tax? Is it a fee? Is it a premium?...Does it really make a difference what you call it if all choices mean money coming out of your pocket?
To focus on a particular wording, as if the end result can be made more palatable by giving it a more friendly name, is a foolish waste of time. This kind of time-wasting argumentation is frequently used by those with no answers to the problem. They prefer to divert attention to semantics and word-trickery so everyone loses track of what the issue IS.
Judge Roberts will just say, "I think we know what they meant." and uphold the law. The left love this as they will be able to say, "The law was upheld twice by the SCOTUS, it's the law, get over it."
Oh wake the fuck up already. This is going to go precisely the way Team O needs it to go. There are no mysteries or riddles left in our small corner of the universe. Big Healthcare/RX/Medsprawl hospital/research facilities NEED not want this boondoggle piece of legislation to stay afloat. Way too much money riding on this to let something as trivial as a sound legal argument stand in their way. How many times do we have to see these things miraculously go their way before it sinks in that NOTHING changes (anywhere in this world) until heads are splattered on walls by 12 gauges??
There are a lot of people who need the ACA...including, I would argue, the GOP.
Healthcare costs are going up, up, up. And since no one has the stones to really DO anything about that, the ACA provides perfect cover for the GOP to lay the blame squarely on Obama. They can tell their pissed-off voters that their costs went up because of 'that evil Obamacare'.
What will they tell them if there IS no ACA to blame?
The truth that Medicare and Medicaid has been fueling the price increases previous to the ACA?
I love comments like this; that force me to log in, just to up vote. :)
You are sooooooooooooooooooooooo right.
Go get em Tiger.
Careful driving up to that White House gate. They don't shoot well but they shoot a lot.
With pussies like you on my 6, I'm sure the revolution will go smoothly.
And just so we're clear, sport you and your ilk [read: cowards and apathetic losers] are actually the greatest problem of all and the first heads I would make go splat.....
Oh good lawrd! another keyboard tuff guy. Hey fvk you First, you are so full of shit your breath stinks. If you are going to splat apethic cowards you better have 300 million rounds of ammo you dumass.
So tell me veritable confirmed tough guy....doesn't that make you just another apathetic cowardly shithead, too?
Sure does big fella, so now you have to come blow my head off. I am sure glad we have a tuff smart genius like you so you can be cop court and executioner.
Well let's all sit back and wait for the extinction of the species then. The "smart" thing to do is call others internet tough guys while quietly whimpering in the corner, bemoaning the corruption. Oh the injustice!! lmao. My best guess - you'll blow your own head off eventually and save someone the trouble....
Well let's all sit back and wait for the extinction of the species then.
Or better yet, lets kill everyone that doesnt agree with Bill Oshithead and Rush pillsbaugh. That way there will be more for us and less people strip mining the planet. We can destroy all the nuclear reactors so they wont melt down and kill us. We can shoot anyone driving a car b/c they are polluting our air. If some one disagrees with us , kill them for being a "coward".
You are right, what was I thinking? Kill everybody to save us from ourselves.. Great plan there tuff guy.
Is that what you call trolling?
Sheet...you didn't even mention his mom. WTF?
Charming.
Ok...let's assume the GOP gets their wish. Now what?
What everyone seems to be missing here is that you still have millions without access to affordable health care. So what's the replacement plan? Surely there is a replacement plan? I mean, how many years has it been? Most certainly these big, pulsating GOP brains have tethered together SOME sort of an exit plan for all these folks, right?
Wrong. As bad and misbegotten as Obamacare IS, the alternative is...nothing. There IS no exit plan, and since nothing was done to rein in costs, all those newly-freed ACA slaves will simply be passed on to the taxpayers in their respective states. And since nothing was done to slap a leash on the insurance industry, all those taxpayers will see their premiums go UP AGAIN post-ACA!
The GOP had better understand that after all their campaigning, their voters will EXPECT to see premiums go DOWN...if they can't deliver that, they might want to reconsider this strategy. They have made it clear that they believe your rates went up BECAUSE of Obamacare, so getting rid of it had better be reflected in their premiums, or there will be hell to pay...I hope they at least have some of the bigger insurers on board.
In their zeal to deliver a 'mortal blow' to their nemesis, they forgot to consider their next move.
You do realize that Obamacare is really Mittcare don't you? Obamacare is all based off of a GOP plan baked up by the Heritage foundation and then put to work in Massachusetts. Don't get caught up in the theater. Both sides want us on a single payer system, and that is where we will go. It amazes me that there are still people on this site who believe there is an actual difference between the two parties on the fedeal level.
hear, hear.... doc.
It's like the fish in a bowl joke.
Every time they swim by the castle one says to the other "Hey, There's a castle!"
That lifelong programming really does work.
I do realize that...that's why this whole thing is so stupid. Healthcare costs have been a problem for years...Mittcare was just a way to postpone the day of reckoning. Obamacare was simply the same thing applied on a federal level...
Neither Dems nor Repubs have been willing to DO anything, both have opted for the bandaid. But the GOP has painted itself into a corner by drawing attention to the bandaid instead of offering a plan that tackles the wound beneath. Now they have their base foaming at the mouth to rip that damned bandaid OFF...wait till their base gets a good look at what's underneath.
Because they've spent so much time demonizing all things Obama, they can't just reapply the same bandaid, and there IS no other.
So, let's see what they do if they get their way. It'll be put up or shut up time.
...and there IS no other.
There ARE other alternatives.
Cancel both Medicaid and Medicare. Without that cash from the Federal Government flowing to Doctors and the Healthcare System the prices would collapse.
Real competition will be restored.
Before these two socialist programs originating from LBJ's Great Society going to the Doctor, or having the Doctor make a house call, was affordable for most.
It really does not matter as the unfunded liabilities and the current accounts are set to overwhelm the USA and force this outcome anyway.
At times the best solution is to do nothing...at times.
You just do not want that alternative raised, or heard, as it will spoil your socialist dreams.
Alternatives generally exist unless one is facing a predicament. And the USA Economy is no longer a problem but it is a predicament. Problems may, or may not, have solutions, whereas, predicaments only have outcomes.
The outcome of this ACA is dismal at best and catastrophic at worst. And it really does not matter. This nation will not last much longer anyway.
I hear what you're saying doc but there was not even one Rhino who voted for this cluster of a plan. Call me what you will. I can tell you this I've voted Republican my whole life (I might be considered old) and I'm originally from the same district and county as John Boehner. I could not be more different politically yet we are in the same party. He's a coward and a traitor to the constitution if you ask me. Boehner does not represent anything that I as a registered Republican stand for and I think thats the way most of the country feels about both party's politics right now imo.
I dont want a single payer system but I dont think any of this matters if the debt monster Obama and Bush have created is not stopped immediately. The rest of it all is just theater before the train runs out of track.
And both of those are Grubercare. And Gruber has said repeatedly that the law was meant to exclude recalcitrant states' FSA from receiving central government money.
So the people that cannot afford the insurance can afford to pay the high deductables?
If they cannot make them take on debt by using the carrot, well then they will make them do so using the stick.
pods
Like you care. You care about as much as you are bemused.
Before Obamacare, what was the alternative? Go fuck yourself.
LOL! That argument works here on ZH...But I doubt the voters would be impressed.
Socialism fails when Governments run out of other people's money.
Then the voters will be impressed when they do without. And that is what will happen due to Democracy.
The USA was not intended to be a Democracy but was set up as a Representative Republic. The citizen could only vote for his district's Representative. Senate votes were not allowed and neither was a vote for the President.
State Legislators chose the US Senators before 1912. The President was elected by the Electoral College, again votes were cast by State Appointed Representatives.
Restore Constitutional Government and repudiate, nullify, anti-constitutional amendments.
Tall Tom, just one very small quibble: amendments are part of a constitution, hence calling them anti-constitutional does not make sense
"State Legislators chose the US Senators before 1912". and then the Progressives pointed out that corruption was rampant, among the State Legislations
this is a very important fact that is seldom mentioned
the public opinion in the US was quite strongly for further federalization, and so the 17th Amendment, because the Federal Government, while distant, looked way less corrupt then most State Legislatures. and the call for popular elections of Senators looked good, in this frame and setting
of course, race played a role, as well. but the average American voter was mainly disgusted by the news of oligarchs bribing whole State Legislatures and getting so in the Senate
have a look at the newspapers of the years 1908 to 1912 and you'll see lots of evidence of what I'm writing here. of course, you might, after research, be of the opinion that it was all Progressive propaganda, but this does not change the apparent motives that led to the vote for the 17th, then
see here a propaganda cartoon of that age: link. note the "Gilded Age" monopolist of that time, Standard Oil, being shown as a giant tentacled monster rapaciously grabbing power in the State Capitols. the modern explanatory title in wikipedia of that cartoon is "Gilded Age monopolies could no longer control the U.S. Senate (left) by corrupting state legislatures (right)", and this is the way many newspapers and many State Legislatures saw the thing
Ghordiius is never alarmed by concentrations of power remote from those who are ruled, I sometimes feel mr G was a roman elite in some past life, ruling the world from rome, and sending rome's armies to quell the barbarians at the frontier..you would make a good US senator they also think DC is the center of the world.
You focus on the 7.5 million from Obamacare but that still left nearly 30 million uncovered
Medicare for all. Not enough private private.
Forcing us into the clutches of the insurance monster is nothing but government coerced fascism. Anytime an industry has a monopoly on business by government decree is nothing less than a fascists dicktastershit. We don't need/want a king you worthless assholes, we already had to kill a gaggle of fvkheads from England over this shit. When will idiot humans ever learn?
Perhaps now we'll get that much needed economic growth.
Why does the government choose to subsidize everything?
Food, housing, heallth insurance, medical bills, retirement,
Doesn't anyone work anymore?
a subsidy is a vote buying scheme. that's why the left loves subsidies. it's the compassionate thing to do. have you no heart?
USA= Parasite Paradise
That's why the GOVERNMENT loves subsidies. Shows the people why they need them.
Same for when shit blows up or it snows too much.
-Chancellor Sutler
V is for Vendetta. Needs to be watched by all with a mind for Liberty and Freedom.
The left? You have now proven that you are one of the sheep. Left vs Right is a ploy created to give sheep, like you, the illusion of choice. It seems to work quite well. Now some self proclaimed liberal will point out that the left may favor subsidies to the poor, but the right showers subsidies onto large corporations that are already very profitable. See......it's a fun GAME TPTB use to distract the citizenry while emptying their pockets. Play on sheeple, play on.
McDoanlds : Burger King
Coke : Pepsi
Apple : Android
Miller : Budweiser
Republican : Democrat
See you have a choice....
we're talking about healthcare, right? The ACA was passed by the LEFT, on Christmas eve. do you remember?
And who passed the medicare prescription drug handout?
You play into 'their' hands with the red team vs. blue team bullshit.
Same as it ever was.
Hello sheep.
Where have you been? It's called vote buying, and it is a very old game politicians play.
Since this seems to be the place for predictions...
1) Rumor had it that Justice Roberts changed his mind at the last minute and sanctioned Obama care as a TAX
2) The Gruber youtube outting was crazy BIG news
3) The game was always single payer (plan S)
4) The fuckedupness of Obamacare rollout was crazy BAD
I predict that the Supreme Court WILL rule against the use of tax credits unless the exchanges were established by the states. This will cause absolute chaos!!! The Republicans and Democrates will work together (take plan S out of the drawer) and replace Obamacare via the bridge to plan S.
The Po-Po is doing a great job killing the mentally ill folk. Let them have euthanize the rest of the 'disabled' folk.
Not a lawyer, but …… does it matter that state is not capitalized?
State is a specific state and state is any state as in the state of governance.
No chaos - instead, completely deteriministic outcome: the Totalitarianism will increase ever-more slightly
All 3 branches of our govt are working together towards a complete full-spectrum-dominance Totalitarian regime.
The only recourse at this point is the 2nd Amendment.
If history is correct, the last time an empire as vast as the U.S. went down , 500 years of “Dark Ages” followed. Go long tick and flea spray… and worm medicine.
Haven't heard it put that way. Usually it's pitchforks, guns and ammo. But the reality in a shtf scenario is more likely to be the obscure (to us in out current state of ignnorance and bliss) down and dirty, gritty reality of disease and pestilence from lack of sanitation and concentration of populatioins in cities.
Nah, the Chinese will move in - they already have beachheads - and subjugate the locals. And that will make us long for the good old USSA.
The only recourse at this point is the 2nd Amendment.
You go first.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
The founding fathers had much to lose. They risked everything. At one's breaking point, one will make a decision: would I rather live as a sheep, a subject - or not. Fortunately we have yet (in my opinion) to, and I sincerely hope we never have to, reach a collective breaking point and resort to the last option. I still hold out hope that the situation can be reversed in a peaceful manner, perhaps and probably so in vain. But history is not so accomodating.
"...a decision against the Obama administration would wipe out the tax credits that make insurance affordable for millions of people..."
What a bunch of bull. Let's talk about how Obamacare makes insurance UNAFFORDABLE for tens of millions of people that don't qualify for a subsidy. Our $2500 deductible policy that was affordable in 2010 at $450/mo is now $1380/mo...! If we were to pick up a policy from the exchange, the closest in benefits would be a $3000 deductible policy for $1700/mo...! Thank goodness we have no health issues and will be on Medicare in October. I pity the 55-60 year olds that will have to fork over thousands of dollars more in the next 5-10 years for less coverage. The cutoff for subsidies is $62,040 for a married couple. Gross income of $62,039 receives about $850 monthly in subsidies. Make $2 dollars more and the subsidy is ZERO.
I say abolish health insurance altogether. We're conditioned to the concept of health insurance, so govt is requiring everyone to have it instead of tackling the real problem of medical costs. As long as we have Sugar Daddies picking up the medical bills, costs will continue to skyrocket. If we take govt and insurance companies out of our health care, costs will have no choice but to drop. Real people wouldn't pay $500 to consult with a specialist for 10 minutes, but insurance companies do and our govt approves.
Saying that 55-60 year olds have to hold on until Medicare is a dream to be sure. Your assumption that Medicare will be around in 10 years in its current capacity is just not fiscally plausible. And BTW, they'll be in the same boat as the rest of us 45 year olds- fucked!
Can anyone point ZH readers to a good, comprehensive study on exactly why healthcare costs are so high?
I don't have a study, but common sense tells me that prices are high because of government intervention and insurance subsidization.
Because our system has monetized healthcare. Some things can not be translated into profit-generating businesses. When you try, you run into problems because you are forced to put a "price" on everything. When it comes to healthcare, you end up pricing human life, which then gives you a serious moral dilemma.
All that has been hidden behind health insurance. Since most are never billed directly, and all they see are their premiums, they don't make the connection. What they see as 'coverage' is actually the value in dollars that the insurance companies and providers have placed on their lives, well-hidden in all the business-like paper work.
If they had to negotiate these costs directly with the providers, the connection would be more obvious. Without healthcare insurance as a middleman, you'd know up front just how valuable you ARE to these folks. And they'd have to tell you to your face that they won't help you because you aren't paying enough, instead of worming out of it by blaming 'tiers of coverage', etc.
If providers had to come out and admit it's all about money, there'd be no more pretending that there is some sort of altruistic nobility in what they do. They'd have to admit they are money-whores just like everyone else.
My developing theory is that government needs growth industries to bleed and tax it citizens and everything else has been off-shored. So government became a co-conspirator in letting the healthcare industrial complex grow unfettered to suck us all dry and then the government gets it cut.
I am a physician and I agree. I have paid several medical bills for my wife's family who live in the Philippines.
Physician Fees, Hospital fees, MRI and radiology fees for sugery of a herniated L4-5 disc (complete recovery): $ 1,800
Hospital , surgeon and all expenses for appendectomy $800
Hospital, surgeon and all expenses for partial mastectomy for chronic abcess: $800
Yet, a cousin in law with a hand abcess from a farming injury (puncture) in the Philippines could not afford basic health care for what I call "kitchen table" orthopaedics to treat an abcess which might have literrally been treated with simple incison and drainage and debridement with dressing changes at home on the kitchen table-or in my case, I have treated these outdoors on an improvised picnic table. Result for this man: Clostridium Tetanus, seizures, sepsis and death.
thank you for the comment- please post again-- +1
Oh, if obozocare goes down by scotus the whole country will implode, there will be babies jumping out of buildings, puppies being run over by trains, ice cream will be banned. And the Americans, who are such a bunch of weak little pussies, will have to slink off into a cave, suffer and die without health insurance in horrible pain because they'll never be able to devise any kind of alternative. Sigh. Boy, I sure hope john roberts realizes the fate of humankind rests on this decision. Obozo has done all he can for us--oh well--if it all goes to hell in a hand basket, it won't be his fault.
Kaos I think not. the 2nd faction of our 1party system alwready approved this fascist law. Expect more of the same. We get the gov't we deserve. and we deserve shite.
I've got acceptable insurance through an employer, which means that the health (Idon't) care companies treat me like an ATM machine.
I injured my elbow. Suffered from the pain for 2 weeks, and it wasn't getting better. So I went to my doctor for the first time in 8 years. Ran an x-ray, nothing broken. Said he could really only diagnose it with an MRI, but that the insurance companies won't pay for it until I go through physical therapy. 6 weeks of physical therapy later, I'm marginally improved. But the PT costs were $4,000 dollars! One of the bills included a bag of ice for $80. I am not making that up. It must have been sustainably harvested glacial ice frozen by the hands of virgin eskimos. Now there is a place in town that charges a $600 flat fee for MRI's, but they are not in my insurance network. In the end, I had to reach into my pocket for approximately $1,200, and I can't say that I have been diagnosed or treated to this point.
We outsourced all the good manufacturing jobs through "free trade" agreements. It's long past time to oursource our heath care industry to India and Thailand, where the cost of my care would have yielded change on a $100 bill.
The sooner this system is completely and entirely destroyed, the better. I don't fear the "chaos" of overturning Obamacare, I fear the consequences of keeping this welfare for insurance companies, drug companies, and hospital congolomerates going.
I've had a similar experience with ulnar nerve impingement. Had to see 1. Primary care doc who sent me to 2. Physical therapy. When they couldnt fix it sent me to a 3. Specialist. Sent from there for 3. EEG test 4. MRI 5. cortisone shots and ultimately 6. surgery.
And the physical therapist told me it would probably end up in surgery nearly a year ago. Along the way each visit and follow up visit dipping in to my pocket
I'm sure Roberts will just rewrite the law again so as not to side with use slaves. Even though Gruber, one of the architects of the law, states otherwise....of course, he flip-flopped, but we all know the truth.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/25/obamacare-architect...
The ACA was a half-assed 'fix' for a problem neither party had the balls to do anything about. In fact, it is a clone of the Romney plan in Mass. Which was a half-assed 'fix' for a problem no one had the balls to do anything about.
Personally, I'd like to see the GOP "win" this one. Not because that would fix the problem, but because the half-assed fix will finally be removed, leaving us with the problem in all it's glory, for all to see...
The ball will then be in the GOP's hands, and they will finally have to PRODUCE something of their own, instead of milking the "Obamacare" cow, and using it to provide cover for a problem they'd rather not deal with.
Do you think the government is easily going to give up its effort to cost-shift the poor onto the remaining middle class? Expect the ACA II in short order if the Supremes can't be threatened into submission.
Robertson is already a slave to the oligarchs. He's been blackmailed. This decision is a foregone conclusion in favor of Obamacare.
We need a revolution.
We need a revolution.
you
go
first
Good luck with that shit. History shows us that revolutionary governments tend to already be controlled by the oligarchs by the time they gain power... and yes, that includes the US revolution. Freedom equals stateless societies, and stateless societies are incapable of resisting invasion. They only solution at this point is thousands of more years of pain till humans get smarter. Mother nature isn't going to give us that time. We are fucked. There's probably not much of human history left, and it's all going to be a boot stamping on a human face.
You are 100% correct. All these tuff guys are too stupid to see what happened throughout history. They are just looking for a reason to kill people which makes them no better than the assholes they want to replace. Humans are a flawed specie and extinction or a drastic reduction of numbers is the only future of any parasite. We are killing the host (planet) of resources we need to survive. The planet will be fine, it has seen a lot worse than us. George Carlin.
You can't deny the fact that some folks just need killin.
Slippery slope there fella. First they came for_____ but I was not a ____ so I said nothing.
justice is based on principles, apparently an alien concept between your ears.
FOAD...
"a hangin's too good for em pa!"
Soylent Green. I heard Obama watched this as a documentary. Not dystopian sci fi
A flawed species and doomed to extinction? Then crawl the fuck back down your miserable hole of self pity and die already. What the hell are you doing here, bitch ass trick? Drastic reduction of numbers you say?
YOU FIRST, DICKHEAD.....
It is this aggressive nature that you are portraying that is the flaw of which I speak. Pride is the killer tuff guy. Humans are the only animal that slaughters each other in wholesale numbers. Other species work together, but humans only band together to kill their rivals. We also shit in our nest to the point that there is a garbage patch the size of Texas spinning in the Pacific gyre. The Atlantic has one also. Fukushima, need I say more? But your solution> kill everyone. so fuck you asshole.
The solution to all the problems you enumerated is obviously passivity. I mean, obviously. Jesus - what a fucking retard. Apathetic do-nothing morons like you are BY FAR the bigger threat. I'll take killing people who genuinely deserve it over trying to pick the sand out of my vagina all day.....
So who decides who deserves to die? You? Grow up.
Funny that you say this. One of the author's of this piece of shit legislation is Rahm-bo Emmanuel's brother Zeke. A doctor. He believes that all medical treatment should be stopped for everyone once you turn 75. Truly an Obamacare Death Panel if he had his way
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2766713/I-hope-die-75-Prominent-...
Rahm 2020. First Jewish Prez
Of course he decides, he is a genius elitist wanna be and the world is full of these self rightous fvks that think their shit dont stink and can dictate to everyone else. Typical prideful fvking knowitall that cant see past his own blindness due to the group think mindfuck he is mired in. Idiots is what I call them. Humanity is flawed and he is the glaring example.
Get the fuck out there with the other NIMBY activists and change the world then, dickhead. DO SOMETHING meaningful. You don't advocate change through violence then get out there and show us how it's done peacefully you fucking hypocrite of monumental proportions. Lead by example, or as you put it, YOU FIRST. Show us the golden path to enlightenment through non-violence [read: bending over for serial ass raping]. Get back to me on that after you've had your skull cracked open or been shot in the face by 15 roid raging cops. You're trapped in a childlike state and not in an endearing sort of way.
You speak of being mired in groupthink mindfuck. Shiiiit, if they handed out awards for actionless mindfucking, you'd be the hands down MVP. Do-nothing, whiney bitch ass tricks with their sit back, wait and see attitude while fiddling with their iGarbage are precisely why we are where we are today. But go on Ghandi. Lay out your 5 point plan to remedy mother nature's pressing problems and please spare no details. I'm intrigued. I want to join your cult. How do pacifistic pussies change the world again? I'm guessing you'll spout some nonsense about mankind as a virus or cancer and ask that we all wander aimlessly until death claims us? Awesome.
Blah blah blabber fvkin blah.. I am apathetic remember? YOU are the one threatening to over throw the government through destruction so YOU as the genius you are can usher in utopia. Well get the fuck with it hotshot I aint getting any younger.
Stop being an asshole. You know very well there are probably 500 people, right off the top of your head, who deserve death and THEY made the decision to be targeted through their actions.... But let's play out your scenario where the beneficent state (or some mythical deity maybe?) decides who lives or dies. How's that working out for you? How's that working out for 1MM dead Iraqis? How'd that work out for the million dead in Vietnam and every other far flung locale where we've meddled cuz, Awwww Shucks, the almighty state should decide those things. Fucking idiot.
Your naivete is touching but it's misguided and utterly fucking clueless. If anyone needs to grow up and get a clue, it's you.
Ok tuff guy, no one here is stopping you, fvkin CHARGE! Lets see it.. I want you to take a pic of deadeye dick's head on a pike and then by god I will grab my ar and we will go after Geoergie. But I know your kind, YOU want everyone else to charge that machine gun post while YOU stay back in the office directing the war. Loser
If pacifism/apathy is so the recommended method of change, maybe you'd care to demonstrate the fruits of your labor? Why not show us what you've accomplished through peaceful change. Just what I thought. FUCK ALL. Yeah, you're just about as "tuff" as I am, right? lol.
Jesus was a retard?
Yeah, bring religion into it dipshit as if that is something we can look to for solace. And Jesus is a figment of your weak, limited imagination....
Kill everyone that wont agree with you.. now there is a good imagination. Why do I argue with a punkass kid in his mothers basement..? Go back to believing you will kill anyone that is apathetic and have a wonderful life. i bet you are a riot at the party.
Yes, that's clearly what I said - murder everyone who doesn't agree with me. Straw men and poor reading skills are fairly commonplace today so you're in good company in that respect at least. And it's funny you mention arguing with a kid in his mother's basement as I had you pegged for a recent sociology graduate with a minor in unemployment.....
And just so we're clear, sport you and your ilk [read: cowards and apathetic losers] are actually the greatest problem of all and the first heads I would make go splat.....
what is this> You get to decide who is and is not apathetic losers?
It's been a long time since the SCOTUS have struck down a law when it wasn't convenient for the banksters. They aren't about to give up such a large new source of profits as the "insurance premiums" charged to the proles whether they like it or not. And no matter what they'll continue to enjoy the best health care money can buy.
(The fraction thrown to the FSA to pay for their stomach staples, anchor baby deliveries and the hearts, lungs and livers torn out of white folk who are, rest assured, very much alive and conscious on arrival at the hospital? Cost of doing business.)
If Roberts were man enough to pull the plug, he'd have already done it in 2012. He didn't and he won't. He values his life.
Nothing to see here, citizens. Move along.
For you to get the best care needed (correct diagnosis and treatment) you need to be wealthy and SELF-PAY. The doctors get your cash and don't have to battle the insurance companies. Your health is measured against profits. Profits are 1ST your life is secondary and spare parts for the big money transplant programs. This is Corporate, one size fits all for profit heathcare. Take a look at the movie Coma..
'Established by the states' does not imply 'run by the states'. So expect to see each state without their own exchange 'establish' an exchange that will be 'operated' by the Feds. Some states may have a chance to say 'no' but there will be executive orders and various funding gimmicks from government agencies that will whip states into line. These are the kinds of games the Democrats play - while Boehner and McConnell snooze.
Boehner and McConnell both support this fascist govt.
Compulsory buy into ObamaCare must include members of Congress and federal employees, then lets see how that will pan out.
Correct me if I pulled a Brian Williams and "misremembered". Weren't Congressional staffers forced to get Obamacare policies? Not Congress themselves of course.
If they ruled that the government can charge you a tax for NOT buying something, then do we really believe they are going to overturn the whole law over the definition of a word? The fix is in. Dont get your hopes up
@brushhog
This decision doesn't overturn Obamacare. It disallows federal subsidies that was the whole point of making it Affordable Care. It was always meant to drive 35 million (potential) new customers to the Insurance Cartel with mandated policies that the gov't would help foot the bill for if people couldn't afford to buy it on their own.
IMO the law without subsidies is cruel and won't stand for long. People will just say fuck it. Take the tax hit. And then they will be pissed. Because that tax penalty keeps climbing year after year.
And they take it out of your refund. So it becomes a double tax hit.
It becomes a poverty tax in essence
So non working dropout others out west are fine.
This is silly.
Define "state"
a. The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity: the state intervening in the economy. From the Free online dictionary.Sounds simple to me.....
just because law says that people qualify for credits when they buy insurance on an exchange “established by the state” does not in itself mean that they can't get these credits for a federally established exchange. The question is what does the ACA say about an exchange set up by the federal govt. Well, to be honest I have not read the entire ACA, been meaning to, but it is kinda long and all that legal jargon makes my head spin after a few paragraphs.
On a positive note, for those 8 million or so who might lose their health insurance if the court says it is unconstitutional, do not worry! Obama can sign an executive order establishing the federal exchanges. problem solved.
What's the point to being King if you can't issue Royal edicts?
Checks and balances are so early 20th Century.
sounds like the federalis forgot the meaning of the word "state". i t used to mean the individual states as in the united states of america. the feds sound like they decided they are the state.
this is much ado about nothing. if the law refers to stae as it has always meant then there is an implied mandate that the states set up an exchange. so the problem is solved when the state sets up the exchange.
it is the koch brothers, afterall. they figured out the alternative to big .gov is big plutocracy. obabamcare takes money out of circulation and directs it to big healthcare. if the kock brothers were in healthcare i don't think they would care much about obambamcare.
"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 my view, the above snippet is the 'take-home' of the entire piece. Why? Because it shows how the politics of ideology can and Do affect the decision making process of those supposedly screened and vetted for adherence to Constitutional principle and spirit. As cliche' and arcane is it might sound, it would be wise to remember that our 'system' - and in this case, the highest legal ruling body in the land, is (supposedly) obligated to 'filter' their decisions through the lens of Constitutional precept, principal and 'spirit' - i.e., Individual Freedom and Liberty as being ultimately Superior to the 'common good' (whatever the bloody Hell that phrase means anyway...)
We 'elevate' people to the Supreme court for this reason - albeit they tie their shoes like the rest of us, but we put our faith in them to make critical decisions based upon the objectivity and reason of our Founding as the basis or starting point from which Any of their decisions are made. We have strayed so far off the mark that is it amazing that the entire construct of 'America' even exists anymore.
A brand name can only dominate a market for so long after the quality that the brand represents disappears.
The marketing plan will eventually fail as buyers drop the product line.
The 'American' brand is no different.
I will tell you a little secret that will help you comprehend what the law is. KENTUCKY or KY are not Kentucky. THE UNITED STATES is not The United States of America. And state does not have to mean one of the United States of America. Lawyers and politicians are low down dirty lying scum. Take this into consideration and then re-evaluate Robert's previous ruling. Congress has full municiple control of DC AKA THE UNITED STATES and its territories. It has absolutely no, zero, nada territorial jurisdiction in the several union states of The United States of America. Don't believe it? Read Title 18 Section 7 US code. It's only a page and a half or so.
Any time a law gets tested at the lowest level (the supreme court that catches everything that falls through the sieve), if that law can not gain a unanimous decision, it is something the government is not the solution for ... the law should be abandoned. Non-government remedies must be found.
I would suggest a diet free of sugar to start with.
Ice Bucket Challenge is now the:
"SUGAR FREE CHALLENGE"
Apple cider vinegar and other very 'old school' remedies, such as 'oil of oregano' for one.
It's all about where the food enters your stomach after you swallow.
The 'good' stuff never reaches your stomach.
The 'good' food gets siphoned off by fungal parasites.
Fungal parasites are hell in your intestine and network all through your body.
Sugar is one cause and antibiotics makes for good conditions for that fungus to grow.
"SUGAR FREE CHALLENGE"
Good start, but it goes way deeper (pardon the pun) to the alimentary canal. That's where the majority of these nasties are harbored. Check out V. E. Irons. they threw his ass in prison for upsetting the medical extortion mafia.
Fucking Roberts is owned by corporations, and the uberspys have paid him a visit. Not hard to figure out where this is going.
if you like your health plan you can keep your healthplan if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. We torchered some folks.
What kind of citizens give the state power over life and death?
Judge Roberts is a piece of dogshit. O-care 2012 proved that. I hope the fucker get what any piece of dogshit deserves.
I think affordable care act means affordable for the government and those who have no income.
The rest of us have to suck it up.
Let's face it, it wasn't affordable before Obama care and it isn't after Obama care, for most of us.
I heard a report recently that 60% of personal bankruptcy's in the US are from medical expenses.
I am sure many of you are aware of the huge cost if one ends up in the hospital.
Then you have to fight the insurance companies.
Then there is the cost of litigation to the health care industry, lots of ambulance chasers
What are you gonna do?
You have to have insurance.
Living a healthy life style is no gaurentee that you will not incur a huge medical expense.
I have seen that many times over the years in ICU.
This is what I want to know about Obamacare. That it will increase not decrease medical bankruptcy
Anecdote. My friend had a plan that was cancelled because it didn't meet the bullshit of "If you like your plan you can keep your plan".
Took him weeks. Seriously weeks to get through on Healthcare.gov. Bronze plan doubled his premium. Quadrupled his deductible. One of his specialists for his kid having asthma was now out of network.
Family of four: annual deductible $12,700 per year. Every year.
And to the fact that Obamacare has not "bent" any cost curves. He went to the emergency room for what he thought was a heart attack. Spent 18 hours in a hospital bed in the ER. Not even over night. Billed $18,000
If only Roberts didn't have a son who smokes pot or daughter who's a meth-head.
Then there's that little matter of that kiddie porn showing up on his computer.
Damn the luck.
Obama can just change the law, he has a phone and a pen remember?
"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.
What a concept ... "people feeling responsible for their bills".
It all starts at the top. The government isn't responsible for their bills, banksters aren't responsible for anything since they know they will get bailed out, and that attitude doesn't trickle down, it gushes downwards.
Jefferson went to his grave regretting that they ever gave congress the ability to borrow money. Once that ability is there, the fucking banksters will soon own the country.
You are correct. It all "starts at the top". But it is the individual that is at the top. Successive layers of government are below. The federal government is "at the bottom". Once we rediscover the obvious, we're on our way to better health.
obamacare is about FORCING everyone to be insured.
When you FORCE YOURSELF ON SOMEONE.....THAT IS BATTERY...or rape. Who feels that iit is the essence of America's constitution that our government has a "right" to do this?
WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. STILL...or as long as you wish to think that you have no power to speak up for your freedom. Slaves stop demanding freedom.
Non-slaves would rather die than relinquish self-respect...self-determination...freedom.
obamacare is more about making slaves of the citizenry. Chain us up. Whip us with penalties for non-compliance....asserting our "freedom"....
we are being herded into a bad place...a bad state of affairs.
Examine the premise that our "government" has a right to tell us what to do. It doesn't constitutionally. That sense is permitted by people who are slaves...slaves to the
premise that we cannot do for ourselves better than the government can mandate. Order does NOT NEED LAW.
iF YOU WANT TO CONTROL HEALTHCARE COSTS.....ELIMINATE INSURANCE.
YOUR MEDICAL CARE WILL COST LESS. You will have better care, because the money suckers will leave the profession. You will get the care you deserve and need based on your own merits.
That would be nice but not very realistic.
Insurance is only part of the huge health care cost.
Lets add in lawyers and the rest of the money grubbers.
But you know, the cost of technology in health care is huge.
MRI machines are not cheap, not to mention fancy lab equipment.
The cost of the high tech meds, now that is scary.
If we want everything done, then we are going to have to pay a pretty big price.
"Chaos" is what we already have, curtesy of the ACCA.
"U.S. law requires hospitals to treat all emergency cases regardless of ability to pay, so many uninsured patients seek care there. "
There's your cause.
why can't they leave it alone
Let's see. Given the NSA got Roberts to come up with the 'tax', what makes anyone think they will find for the plaintiffs this time?
Two Party rule? Pffft..... repubs have majorities in both hoses and yet nothing has changed, crooks get approved for cabinet positions, drones keep droning, NSA keeps NSA'ing, wars keep getting started, no illegalities or executive branch overstepping is challenged. The founders dream is long dead.
Plus they are cowards. Why sue the president - they are the fucking legislators - abolish the fucking law and be done with it. Make and/or abolish laws to correct all these presidential oversteps already. Fucking cowards..........
" 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."
And the poor ... that collection of people (along with the children) the government is always getting larger and more intrusive to protect ... just what taxes do they pay that these credits will apply to?
Right, and so they now explicitly claim "the law" is "whatever we chose to claim we understand it to mean".
This is unavoidably an explicit statement of 100% pure, undiluted, arbitrary authoritarianism. Which is indeed what the predators-class is all about.
so what you two are saying is that the IRS will determine what is a tax break and what isn't? and so a working family will have to go to HR Block and pay $500 every year to recover the same amount in tax credits, and HR Block is notoriously timid about gaming these matters. everyone gets rich but the suckers
I'm saying there is NO LIMIT to what the predators-class can do when they simply ignore what any law or statute or regulation says, and decree "what we wish to understand it to mean at the moment is something else, and we act according to whatever we claim to understand it to mean".
There is already "no limit" in practice to the abuses the predators-class practice, from federal government down to murdering-thug cops.
But this assertion is an explicit claim that they can and should be able to deem any language to mean whatever they wish. Which should (but won't) wake up even the most craven status-quo lover to the nature of the predators-that-be and predator-class.
So yes to your example, but also yes to every other situation the predators can conceive.
The statute says people qualify for credits when they buy insurance on an exchange “established by the state.”
The reality is quite clear. "state" means "state" (one of the 50 states). "state" does not mean "federal government". Obamacare is chock full of references to the "federal government" as well as individual "states".
To decree "state" means "federal government" would REQUIRE all other instances of the word "state" to mean "federal government", which would require about 1000 times more changes and 1000 times more chaos.
Furthermore, there is another (even more certain) way to show "state" means "state". Read the sentence above again. Note the phrase "an exchange established by the state". The phrase "an exchange" is different from "the exchange". The phrase "an exchange" means "any one of many" whereas "the exchange" means "the one exchange".
Note that if this was to mean "one of many exchanges established by the federal government", this necessarily means anyone in any state could buy their insurance from any exchange the federal government established in any state. Obviously that is not possible, because this fraudulent scheme (Obamacare) forces people to buy insurance in their own state.
Of course, the supreme court, like every other "official" body is now quite used to "doing whatever they please" with zero regard for their fictional laws, or logic, or consistency. So they will certainly certify Obamacare as valid again, because that's how these predators operate.
Florida sucks.
+2000 );
giving tax subsidies is unconstitutional, it rewards certain constituents, and their interests over others. joint filing and deductions for dependents should be repealed, your children are not a tax break. instead of making a fair tax code obama is just piling on the cronyism.
In the beginning the Pilgrims left England to escape cronyism, then upon landing on the shores were greeted by Hamilton, Adams, Clay et al.
In my experience with "the law"- meaning Judicial opinions cited in Trial and Apellate Court rulings, cases are decided in advance and then precedent case law is "mined" to justify that opinion- and sometimes the conclusions drawn from case law are stretched to the max to align with the necessary decision.
So, don't expect any earth shattering change, if my experience and cynicism are correct. They will argue that the intent was to have the federal government subsidize all recipients whether they applied in states that had set up the exchanges or not, and will site some kind of argument that there was no explicit restriction against the federal government from doing so in those states which did not set up exchanges.
Not a lawyer. Just my 2 cents.
Don't worry, SCOTUS will vote, in the interests of justice, to give a hundred million dollars to every American citizen, illegal alien, and licensed house pet.
acronym hell
SCOTUS sounds like something between the scrotum and the anus.
like some sort of metrosexual thingy
just say'n
Quote of the day! I've already copied and pasted to my email contacts.
Roberts is "Compromised!" He is no longer a Valid Judge. He will always side with the NWO/Elite. Get use to it. Too bad these fuckers sit on the bench for life.
Roberts and the majority of scotus is corporate libertarian, this is the group which gave us eminent domain. by principle of ED you can tear down any privately owned home or business if it increases the taxes collected on that property (enhance the public good). if (by implication) roberts were to see greater public good in rescinding those tax breaks, (or tearing down that structure and building another one, at the state level) he could vote against OC on principle. remember this is the man who didn't give potus the correct oath first time around, he had to be sworn in twice.