I don't have any "thought masters," meanwhile, all of your "opinions" come from AlterNet and Huffington Post....
Keep insisting that Obummercare is an "overwhelming success" as more and more flaws come to light.... it's eerily similar to Dubya's "Mission Accomplished" slogan
Ask a republican
I'm asking you since you are so all over this issue.
What's your alternative?
My fully covered insurance through my company that I pay nothing for never changed. I have no alternative at this time, I just enjoy watching it crumble.
Why do you want it to crumble?
Because of how it was pushed through congress.
Basically this:"Obamacare was forced though so quickly because it never would have passed otherwise, or would have been significantly changed before passing. The Democrats had a super-majority in congress until Ted Kennedy Died in August of 2009. Then Scott Brown, a republican, would be elected in the special election which would end the super-majority in the Senate and allow the Republicans to filibuster. This forced the Senate to act fast so they passed their version on December 24 and Scott Brown was Elected in January and sworn in on February 4th. The House then had to pass the senate bill as is in order to avoid sending a bill back to the now deadlocked Senate, this lacked any real support from most democrats as well so they did some creative parliamentary procedures to turn the bill in to a budget bill which is subject to reconciliation which blocks filibuster in the senate. This also limited and House changes to budgetary concerns which required the executive order about abortions to be created to satisfy some hold out Democrats.
The reasons for all this were mostly political, this was supposed to be Obama's signature reform and his legacy. The Democrats weren't interested in negotiating with republicans because the had won big in the 2008 elections and this was also partly their victory legislation. The bill was also getting more and more unpopular as the "debate" went on and got uglier and it started becoming apparent that anyone who voted for the bill that wasn't in a totally safe district would face major challenges in reelection bids, especially for republicans, for supporting the bill, so passing fast there was hope that the public's short memory would forget the worst transgressions. The bill was also passed quickly because it has huge welfare spending in it in the form of medicaid expansions and premium subsidies, which once implemented would be nearly impossible to repeal. The spending in the bill was huge and it needed years of extra taxes being collected to build up a cash reserve in order for the bill to be rated as budget neutral."
So you want it to crumble for purely political reasons.
OK.
I don't like most politicians, especially those who don't follow laws so yes.
Which laws were broken?
Can't speak for TSA, but I want it to crumble because it's just horrible legislation that was forced through Congress and has been a failure in practice....
As for alternatives, the Private Option Healthcare Act of 2010 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obummercare....
Can't argue the way it was legislated, but in what ways has it failed?
As master politician LBJ said, "if you have enough votes, you can do anything".
And the Dems had enough votes, so it passed.
What was forced?
because no Repug voted for it? that's not forcing, it's called voters kicking your sorry asses and losing both House and Senate.
They couldn't even build the website properly, the government couldn't even pay the subsidies properly, studies have shown that Obummercare will lead to a rise in the number of uninsured, as of this April only one-third of registrants were previously uninsured, etc....
Hm, well the rate of uninsured has dropped to it's lowest point since
gallup started being measured in 2008. What do those studies say about that?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/172403/un...d-quarter.aspx
Stephen Parente used the Obama administration's final 2014 enrollment reports and his microsimulation model to project health plan prices and enrollment over the next decade. His projections, shared first with the Washington Post, find an increase in individual plan enrollment in 2015 and 2016, before sharply dropping off in 2017 and then slowly decreasing below 2015 levels by 2024. At the same time, he projects a steady decrease in employer coverage that will be steeper than the gains in Medicaid enrollment, resulting in a greater number of uninsured 10 years out.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wo...it-until-2017/
So does he suggest az change to avoid what he thinks will happen?
I'm all ears.
What Happens If Obama Loses the Halbig Case?
Halbig case goes up to the Supreme Court and they rule for the plaintiffs: in a stroke, everyone enrolled in Obamacare through a federal exchange is no longer eligible for subsidies. What happens then? Is Obamacare doomed?
Not at all. What happens is that people in blue states like California and New York, which operate their own exchanges, continue getting their federal subsidies. People in red states, which punted the job to the feds, will suddenly have their subsidies yanked away. Half the country will have access to a generous en lement and the other half won't.
How many people will this affect? The earliest we'll get a Supreme Court ruling on this is mid-2015, and mid-2016 is more likely. At a guess, maybe 12 million people will have exchange coverage by 2015 and about 20 million by 2016. Let's split the difference and call it 15 million. About 80 percent of them qualify for subsidies, which brings the number to about 12 million. Roughly half of them are in states that would be affected by Halbig.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...es-halbig-case
Hey, this is cool!
All the subsidized insured people in red states that didn't set up a state insurance exchange will lose their subsidies, bringing home FINANCIALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY what a bunch of total assholes the red state Repug politicians are, who willing to screw, and even let die, their own voters just to up Obama and the Dems.
GREAT!
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-22-2014 at 04:47 PM.
Jost noted that conservatives on the Washington-based Appeals Court panel were openly hostile to the law in hearings last winter. “The case was argued on March 25, 2014 to a three-judge panel consisting of Judges A. Raymond Randolph, Harry Edwards, and Thomas Griffith,” he wrote. “Almost from the moment the argument began, Judge Randolph expressed his profound dislike of the Affordable Care Act. He also demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the history of the statute, and of the statute itself.”
Jost said that court’s conservative judges misread the legislative history of the law and some sloppy legislative drafting—less precise rather than more precise language—during the case’s trial phase to create a justification for blocking the federal subsidies. Tuesday’s other federal appeals court ruling, upholding the subsidies, highlighted those same legal ambiguities but reached the opposite conclusion.
“One hopes that by the time the D.C. Circuit announces a decision in this case, the judges will have reread the briefs and supporting record and have corrected any erroneous first impressions,” Jost wrote late last week. “This case is too important to be decided on wrong information…
A decision for the plaintiffs could deprive residents of 34 states of $36 billion in tax credits by 2016 and could cause the non-group market to collapse in those states. The ensuing disruption of the health care system will bring financial ruin to many families and, ultimately, will cost lives. The courts have to get this right.”
Unfortunately, one federal court did not get it right, as Jost put it. But it will not be the final word on this case or this feature of the Obamacare law. Shortly after the ruling was released, the Obama Administration said it would ask all of the judges on the Appeals Court in Washington to review the ruling. And then the federal appeals court in Richmond issued its ruling in the administration’s favor.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/did-...age=1#bookmark
No blame for the blue states that did the same? mother jones you shock me.
"No blame for the blue states that did the same?"
the same what? the blue states that used the federal exchange did nothing wrong, and nearly all expanded Medicaid.
did the Dems, blue states sue Sebelius and screw themselves?
or was it a Repug operative, former dubya appointee as Christian supremacist, JACQUELINE HALBIG screw the red states' people who used the fed exchange?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-22-2014 at 09:50 PM.
Barry's admin appears to be playing chess. Republicans playing checkers.
How Obama's court strategy may help save Obamacare
The ruling on Obamacare is a dramatic example of why Obama forced the issue. | Getty
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 07/22/2014 07:17 PM EDT | Updated: 07/22/2014 07:56 PM EDT
Last fall, President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid deployed the "nuclear option" to help get three liberal judges onto the D.C. Circuit appeals court.
Tuesday's ruling on Obamacare is a dramatic example of why they forced the issue.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 decision that could gut much of Obamacare by preventing the federal government from offering subsidies to many Americans. The two judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents.
But the full court now has seven judges appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans. It took only an hour or so for the administration to announce that it plans to ask the entire bench to review the decision.
(Also on POLITICO: Wild day for Obamacare: Appeals court rulings conflict)
When Obama took to the Rose Garden last June to launch an aggressive campaign to confirm the slate of three new judges to the D.C. Circuit, experts pointed to the critical role that court plays in overseeing federal regulations -- something especially important for a president now focused on implementing his agenda through executive actions in the face of the gridlock on Capitol Hill.
The D.C. Circuit has an often crucial impact on environmental and safety regulations, but Tuesday's decision on Affordable Care Act subsidies is a reminder of just how directly Obama's legacy -- and his signature legislative achievement -- may be linked to the Washington-based appeals court.
"I think it was wise strategy. ... They're probably patting themselves on the back," Curt Levey of the conservative Coalition for Justice said Tuesday, referring to the White House's confirmation drive, which he opposed. "We all knew it was highly unusual, nominating three people at a time to the same circuit. ... We knew this wasn't a coincidence. More than any president, this one is dependent on the D.C. Circuit and that's why it was such a priority."
To confirm three new judges last fall, Reid moved to change Senate rules and eliminate filibusters of certain judicial and executive branch nominees. Asked Tuesday whether the ruling by the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vindicates his decision to deploy the nuclear option last year, Reid was blunt: "I think if you look at simple math, it does."
(Also on POLITICO: Democrats still haven't learned Obamacare lesson)
A White House spokesperson declined to comment for this story, but one former official involved in the discussions about nominating the three new D.C. Circuit judges said the strategy is now looking prescient. It "was pretty brilliant," said the ex-official, who asked not to be named.
Former White House communications director Anita Dunn said the decision to make a public push for the nominees involved some risk because Democrats don't traditionally rally around the issue of judicial nominations except when a Supreme Court seat is in play.
"It's a challenge because unlike the Republican Party, the Democratic Party hasn't spent a lot of time educating grass-roots supporters about the role of the federal judiciary when it comes to issues progressives care about," said Dunn. "The Republican Party has spent a huge amount of time, 20 to 30 years, educating their grass roots about why these issues are important."
One conservative legal activist said she believes Obama was specifically worried about challenges to Obamacare when he made the decision to push to fill the three open D.C. Circuit seats at the same time, despite GOP complaints that there were simply not enough cases to justify the appointments.
"I think this is exactly what the president was thinking about when he decided to ram all those judges through," said Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network. "The president for his whole first term dragged his feet and didn't seem to think judges were really a priority. Then suddenly, out of the blue, he decides he needs to move on what I'd argue is the least busy circuit in the country. ... This is the payoff for him."
One liberal legal advocate said Tuesday that he's hopeful the Obama D.C. Circuit appointees will side with other judges, including a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that unanimously backed the government's authority to interpret the law to allow the subsidies.
"I would hope President Obama's four extraordinarily qualified nominees [to the D.C. Circuit] would side with the six other judges across the ideological spectrum in rejecting these challenges to affordable health care," said Doug Kendall of the Cons utional Accountability Center. "One of the most important impact of filling the four vacancies to this court has been to change dramatically the makeup of the en banc panel."
However, several experts cautioned that it's not certain that all seven Democratic appointees on the court or the four Republican ones will vote along party lines -- or even that the full bench of the D.C. Circuit will agree to take up the case.
"The new appointees really only took their seats in December and January and we're only in July. We're just getting first opinions from these new judges," said Drexel University law professor Lisa McElroy. She studied five years of D.C. Circuit opinions and found that judges usually did not appear to decide cases along ideological lines.
However, McElroy said there are several reasons to think the Obamacare subsidies might be different. For one thing, there's no precedent that directly dictates the outcome of the case, since it involves interpreting wording in the Affordable Care Act.
"While my statistics say it doesn't necessarily make a difference, you do wonder in a case that is so political," McElroy said. "I think that if I were the White House, I would be very glad I had done it," she said, referring to the nomination and confirmation of the three newest Obama-appointed judges.
While Obama supporters may be celebrating his strategy now and continue to reap benefits from it for years to come, McElroy said at some point liberals could regret cutting out much of the filibuster power. "Hindsight is 20-20, but 10 years from now if there's a Republican president and they want those nominees filibustered, they may feel differently," she said.
Of course, even if the D.C. Circuit takes up the Obamacare subsidies case en banc, it might not have the final word since the Supreme Court could decide to consider the issue.
The Obama administration's legal strategy appears to be to try to keep the issue out of the Supreme Court by getting the full bench of the D.C. Circuit to rule for the administration, doing away with the split with the 4th Circuit that developed on Tuesday.
If Tuesday's rulings stand, it's virtually certain the Supreme Court would take the case to prevent Obamacare from being interpreted differently in different parts of the country. However, if the conflict is resolved by the lower courts, it's possible the high court might decide not to wade into the issue.
"If there's no circuit split, I would not be surprised at all if the Supreme Court doesn't hear this case," Kendall said.
However, Levey said that, even without a split in the lower circuits, he thinks the Supreme Court could come up with the four votes needed to dive into the issue. "I certainly think there's three," he said. "It's an existential threat to Obamacare."
Still, the existential threat to Obamacare is negated by politics. No one from either party will be taking away those subsidies. Ted Cruz will likely be sponsoring a bill to keep them in 2015/16 tbh...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
