|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 22, 2014 18:38:04 GMT -5
Recall that the last important ACA decision did not turn out as the Pubs expected.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 22, 2014 20:22:24 GMT -5
"A panel of federal appeals court that covers Washington, D.C., ruled 2-1 that the subsidies are illegal. But about two hours later, a panel from the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 in a separate case that the subsidies are legal."Only an expected minor bump in the road... One appeals court says they're illegal and another says they're not. Doesn't really matter who decided what - that's a sign of an effed up law. No different than a jury voting to convict or clear someone for violating or not violating any other law... doesn't necessarily mean it's a "effer up" law... unless you're a right-winger... and Obama is in the White House... Many appeal courts rule opposite ways... that's why we have the SCOTUS...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 22, 2014 20:28:56 GMT -5
Recall that the last important ACA decision did not turn out as the Pubs expected. Nor do I expect the next one to turn out to their liking either... the ACA is doing pretty well...
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 22, 2014 21:06:03 GMT -5
Recall that the last important ACA decision did not turn out as the Pubs expected. Nor do I expect the next one to turn out to their liking either... the ACA is doing pretty well... Really? You don''t know stuff about the ACA and Maryland do you?
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 22, 2014 21:12:36 GMT -5
Nor do I expect the next one to turn out to their liking either... the ACA is doing pretty well... Really? You don''t know stuff about the ACA and Maryland do you? More than you think...
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 22, 2014 21:44:10 GMT -5
Since it was a TOTAL FAILURE here what did they have to resort to again? ? The website and exchanges here were a complete failure. They were the one project Anthony Brown took charge of, and he screwed it up. And the Democratic voters of Maryland handed him a primary win for that, proving that they do not value competence in elected officials at all. More than likely, that idiot is going to be the next governor here. His reward for costing Maryland taxpayers over $100 million in unnecessary expense rebuilding the site.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 22, 2014 22:47:16 GMT -5
Since it was a TOTAL FAILURE here what did they have to resort to again? ? The website and exchanges here were a complete failure. They were the one project Anthony Brown took charge of, and he screwed it up. And the Democratic voters of Maryland handed him a primary win for that, proving that they do not value competence in elected officials at all. More than likely, that idiot is going to be the next governor here. His reward for costing Maryland taxpayers over $100 million in unnecessary expense rebuilding the site. This is NOT a quote by me...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 22, 2014 22:58:18 GMT -5
One appeals court says they're illegal and another says they're not. Doesn't really matter who decided what - that's a sign of an effed up law. No different than a jury voting to convict or clear someone for violating or not violating any other law... doesn't necessarily mean it's a "effer up" law... unless you're a right-winger... and Obama is in the White House... Many appeal courts rule opposite ways... that's why we have the SCOTUS... Don't be silly. It's two different courts looking at the same evidence and coming up with opposing decisions. It's nothing at all like a jury in a criminal case.
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 22, 2014 23:23:17 GMT -5
The website and exchanges here were a complete failure. They were the one project Anthony Brown took charge of, and he screwed it up. And the Democratic voters of Maryland handed him a primary win for that, proving that they do not value competence in elected officials at all. More than likely, that idiot is going to be the next governor here. His reward for costing Maryland taxpayers over $100 million in unnecessary expense rebuilding the site. This is NOT a quote by me... True, if you had claimed it was you would have been right for a change. It was a TOTAL abortion here.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 9:21:37 GMT -5
This is NOT a quote by me... True, if you had claimed it was you would have been right for a change. It was a TOTAL abortion here. I believe it is a violation of the TOS to attempt to provide a fraudulent post making it appear that you are quoting someone directly and adding your own text to the "quote"... claiming that they said something that they clearly didn't say... but I'm sure, being the person of integrity that you are... you care about the TOS here... And no, I didn't report you to anyone...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 9:25:26 GMT -5
No different than a jury voting to convict or clear someone for violating or not violating any other law... doesn't necessarily mean it's a "effer up" law... unless you're a right-winger... and Obama is in the White House... Many appeal courts rule opposite ways... that's why we have the SCOTUS... Don't be silly. It's two different courts looking at the same evidence and coming up with opposing decisions. It's nothing at all like a jury in a criminal case. Nothing "silly" about it at all... kinda like a hung jury when a different't jury hears the same "evidence" and comes up with a different "verdict"... both courts are a part of our judicial system...
|
|
|
Post by winston on Jul 23, 2014 10:21:27 GMT -5
That's not shocking at all. This administration effs up everything it touches. Including it's claims about the number of Obamacare signups. There is no data supporting the 8 million number they've been triumphantly throwing around. The real number appears to be closer to 5.4 million - at least that's the number they can document. And that is a massive failure - and yet another blatant lie. See what I mean?... He actually said "this administration effs up everything it touches" I see what you mean. Unreal
|
|
|
Post by winston on Jul 23, 2014 10:23:25 GMT -5
Yeah... the one that cost billions and never flew a single combat mission... yep, I did... and that was #50 of 50 if you remember... And you never responded to me, when I mentioned that the F16 also cost billions, and never flew a combat mission until the Gulf War. So? You never had to rely on any of those aircraft to save your butt, either. Maybe he does not like your style of posting, puppet man.
|
|
|
Post by magnaestback on Jul 23, 2014 10:25:30 GMT -5
True, if you had claimed it was you would have been right for a change. It was a TOTAL abortion here. I believe it is a violation of the TOS to attempt to provide a fraudulent post making it appear that you are quoting someone directly and adding your own text to the "quote"... claiming that they said something that they clearly didn't say... but I'm sure, being the person of integrity that you are... you care about the TOS here... And no, I didn't report you to anyone... Report away Einstein, accidents DO happen. Now back on subject.... you dont know stuff about how bad it is here and what they had to do.
|
|
|
Post by winston on Jul 23, 2014 10:27:37 GMT -5
Don't be silly. It's two different courts looking at the same evidence and coming up with opposing decisions. It's nothing at all like a jury in a criminal case. Nothing "silly" about it at all... kinda like a hung jury when a different't jury hears the same "evidence" and comes up with a different "verdict"... both courts are a part of our judicial system... I have a feeling he would report you!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 10:33:01 GMT -5
Recall that the last important ACA decision did not turn out as the Pubs expected. Nor do I expect the next one to turn out to their liking either... the ACA is doing pretty well... Not bad for a train wreck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 10:52:30 GMT -5
Recall that the last important ACA decision did not turn out as the Pubs expected. Not all of them. Remember the Medicaid expansion ruling?Specifically this part: It is not exactly the same as the IRS rule but it is awfully close. The states that decided not to set up the exchanges obviously don't get the government bribe money. But to have the IRS turn around via a rule to force the states into the same result strikes me as eerily similar to what got struck down here. The progressives are currently running up the flag pole the excuse that 'exchange created by the state' is merely a drafting error. I don't think this holds water. That the state exchanges were offered subsidies was the bribe to get the states to play along. Unfortunately for the progressives, much like with the medicaid expansion, the states didn't play along and the progressives coercive nature got shot down by the courts. But who knows. Obama clearly said that the mandates of Obamacare were not a tax yet that is exactly how this horrific law was kept on the books: claiming it was tax. In short, Obama lied to keep this train wreck of a law going.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 11:27:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 11:37:35 GMT -5
Why did the ACA try to bribe the states into setting up exchanges? Federalism. Printz v United StatesNew York v United StatesCongress knew full well that they couldn't coerce the states into setting up exchanges so they bribe them with federal money. If the states set up the exchange, they get the federal funds and if the federal government has to set up the exchange then they don't get the federal funds. The idea that the Democrats forgot about this and simply engaged in a drafting error is pretty far fetched. If the progressives are going to claim ignorance here then they rightfully deserve to have their law invalidated.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 23, 2014 11:45:20 GMT -5
Recall that the last important ACA decision did not turn out as the Pubs expected. Not all of them. Remember the Medicaid expansion ruling?Specifically this part: It is not exactly the same as the IRS rule but it is awfully close. The states that decided not to set up the exchanges obviously don't get the government bribe money. But to have the IRS turn around via a rule to force the states into the same result strikes me as eerily similar to what got struck down here. The progressives are currently running up the flag pole the excuse that 'exchange created by the state' is merely a drafting error. I don't think this holds water. That the state exchanges were offered subsidies was the bribe to get the states to play along. Unfortunately for the progressives, much like with the medicaid expansion, the states didn't play along and the progressives coercive nature got shot down by the courts. But who knows. Obama clearly said that the mandates of Obamacare were not a tax yet that is exactly how this horrific law was kept on the books: claiming it was tax. In short, Obama lied to keep this train wreck of a law going. This last piece is the one that concerns me the most in all of this semi. I understand the the USSC has, if not the authority, the precedent to look toward trying to find what the Congress "meant". It is this authority that enables them to look, for instance, at the writings of Jefferson and Adams as they try to decipher thinking that occurred 250 years ago, in a completely different society. The Obama Administration went out of its way to repeatedly say that there were no new taxes in the ACA. Yet the USSC decided the ACA was based on taxed and somehow found a level of constitutionality in the ACA. I hope that when this piece ends up in front of them, and it will end up in front of them, they remember that there is a difference between the State and Federal government - though I am not confident they will so remember.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 12:04:51 GMT -5
Not all of them. Remember the Medicaid expansion ruling?Specifically this part: It is not exactly the same as the IRS rule but it is awfully close. The states that decided not to set up the exchanges obviously don't get the government bribe money. But to have the IRS turn around via a rule to force the states into the same result strikes me as eerily similar to what got struck down here. The progressives are currently running up the flag pole the excuse that 'exchange created by the state' is merely a drafting error. I don't think this holds water. That the state exchanges were offered subsidies was the bribe to get the states to play along. Unfortunately for the progressives, much like with the medicaid expansion, the states didn't play along and the progressives coercive nature got shot down by the courts. But who knows. Obama clearly said that the mandates of Obamacare were not a tax yet that is exactly how this horrific law was kept on the books: claiming it was tax. In short, Obama lied to keep this train wreck of a law going. This last piece is the one that concerns me the most in all of this semi. I understand the the USSC has, if not the authority, the precedent to look toward trying to find what the Congress "meant". It is this authority that enables them to look, for instance, at the writings of Jefferson and Adams as they try to decipher thinking that occurred 250 years ago, in a completely different society. The Obama Administration went out of its way to repeatedly say that there were no new taxes in the ACA. Yet the USSC decided the ACA was based on taxed and somehow found a level of constitutionality in the ACA. I hope that when this piece ends up in front of them, and it will end up in front of them, they remember that there is a difference between the State and Federal government - though I am not confident they will so remember. If the court ultimately rules that the 'established by the state' is a drafting error then the administration will be on record as to what their intent was. That intent was to force the exchanges to be created. The problem with this is in the NY v US case. Almost exactly the same thing is happening here if the 'drafting error' argument succeeds. Either the states set up their own exchanges or suffer the consequences of the federal government doing it for them. The administration should rightfully get sued again over the 10th Amendment. Shockingly unexpected: the ACA is still a mess.
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheroad on Jul 23, 2014 12:08:15 GMT -5
This last piece is the one that concerns me the most in all of this semi. I understand the the USSC has, if not the authority, the precedent to look toward trying to find what the Congress "meant". It is this authority that enables them to look, for instance, at the writings of Jefferson and Adams as they try to decipher thinking that occurred 250 years ago, in a completely different society. The Obama Administration went out of its way to repeatedly say that there were no new taxes in the ACA. Yet the USSC decided the ACA was based on taxed and somehow found a level of constitutionality in the ACA. I hope that when this piece ends up in front of them, and it will end up in front of them, they remember that there is a difference between the State and Federal government - though I am not confident they will so remember. If the court ultimately rules that the 'established by the state' is a drafting error then the administration will be on record as to what their intent was. That intent was to force the exchanges to be created. The problem with this is in the NY v US case. Almost exactly the same thing is happening here if the 'drafting error' argument succeeds. Either the states set up their own exchanges or suffer the consequences of the federal government doing it for them. The administration should rightfully get sued again over the 10th Amendment. Shockingly unexpected: the ACA is still a mess. And to think, he used up two years of political capital during a particularly difficult economic period, to pass a law that his own party did not read in its entirety. The worst part? I still don't think we have seen all of this law and the full mess it will ultimately create.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 12:17:23 GMT -5
I agree. The mandates, I think, will be a constant source of litigation. If A gets mandated and B does not then B will sue for equal protection. Multiply this out by over 300 million people in the country and it looks to me like the litigation will never end.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 12:40:04 GMT -5
I believe it is a violation of the TOS to attempt to provide a fraudulent post making it appear that you are quoting someone directly and adding your own text to the "quote"... claiming that they said something that they clearly didn't say... but I'm sure, being the person of integrity that you are... you care about the TOS here... And no, I didn't report you to anyone... Report away Einstein, accidents DO happen. Now back on subject.... you dont know stuff about how bad it is here and what they had to do. Like I said... I didn't and am not going to report you... I don't normally do that... I just consider the source... and deal with it there... you need to be more careful...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 23, 2014 12:41:23 GMT -5
I agree. The mandates, I think, will be a constant source of litigation. If A gets mandated and B does not then B will sue for equal protection. Multiply this out by over 300 million people in the country and it looks to me like the litigation will never end. The ACA is going to be litigated for years to come... part of that "tweaking" I've been talking about ever since it was passed... And like I said... you may be surprised to know what I know about Baltimore and the state of Maryland...
|
|