Posted on 03/04/2015 11:12:09 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Make insurance more affordable by ending Washington mandates and giving choice back to the states, individuals and families. Support Americans in purchasing the coverage of their choosing
On Wednesday, March 4, the Supreme Court will hear the King v. Burwell case. It is likely to deliver a death blow to ObamaCare when the decision is announced in a few months. About the only good thing ObamaCare demonstrated is that the federal government should be kept from taking over sectors of the nation’s economy that are working just fine without it.
Health care expert Edmund Haislmaier and legal expert, both of The Heritage Foundation, provided an explanation of the case. “The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Obama administration overstepped its authority in issuing an IRS ruling that conflicts with the ObamaCare statute. The statute allows payment of ObamaCare subsidies only to individuals who obtain coverage ‘through an Exchange established by (a) State.’”
ObamaCare got such a cold reception nationwide that 34 States refused to set up an exchange, forcing the feds to do it. Those exchanges distributed subsidies to individuals participating in them, but the ObamaCare statute “seemingly did not authorize subsidies in such cases.” Suffice to say that ObamaCare health insurance is considerably more costly than what one could have previously purchased on one’s own; thus the need for the subsidies gambit.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
My wife and I have noticed one unexpected effect of Obamacare.
The doctors we go to (both GPs and specialists) seem much less busy these days. Both time to get appts and people in waiting rooms.
My only insight is that the ginormous deductables on policies now must keep folks away.
and it doesn’t help when Obama uses the Worst Lawyers in the World ,LOL
I won’t relax until the decision comes down.
There have been too many disappointments in recent years.
.
As long as the term “racist” still scares the hell out of cowardly people, ObamaCare will remain bulletproof.
The defense argument is going to revolve around standing,
and the actual language in the law.
The sentence
“...through an Exchange established by (a) State”
without the Heritage addition, reads:
“...through an Exchange established by State”
The defense is going to ague that “State” is a generic term that refers to the government as a whole.
Both arguments are very weak.
I give it a 75% chance that we win by a 5-4 vote.
50% chance it goes 6-3.
And so we begin redefining words.
The books are cooked.
Traitor Roberts guarantees a 5-4 vote...for the communists. Again.
Imagine the impact of FSAs (the consumers’ money) being used for all office visits.
Imagine the price and service pressures on the facilities and medical providers (increased service & value, decreased prices).
The left started out their ideology by twisting the meaning of words.
Their founder’s first words to liberal recruits were
“Did God _really_ say...”
This will not end well.
First, I do not think Roberts will vote to gut Obamacare after the lengths he went to last time to rewrite the whole thing as just one big tax bill. From oral arguments this morning, it appears that Kennedy will also flip this time. So it is extremely likely that the Court will rewrite Obamacare to extend the subsidies by either a 5/4 or 6/3 vote.
In the unlikely event that the Court actually follows the law and throws out the subsidies then we will have a replay of the amnesty budget debacle.
The Democrats and the lamestream media will loudly blame the evil Republicans for stealing subsidies and insurance from millions of poor people who are now relying on it. The House will respond by passing a bill extending subsidies for this year and then terminating or scaling back Obamacare. The Democrats in the Senate will insist on a “clean” bill just extending the subsidies.
The Republicans will then cave and that will be that.
Or go to the doctor and they list the additional services they can provide, above and beyond the “free” wellness check.
I don’t agree with the
“Roberts is compromised”
scare
Roberts ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the individual mandate in 2012 because
- he didn’t want to intrude on the separation of powers, and
- he wanted restraint on the Commerce clause
If you recall, Roberts struck down the Medicaid provisions in Obamacare. This protects the states against Federal funding threats.
Roberts defended his position by stating (in essence) that “elections have consequences”
The present case is NOT argued on Constitutional grounds. It is being argued that the letter of the law is not being followed.
I strongly believe that Roberts will shoot down the law on the basis that “words have consequences”
I share the concern that whatever they blackmailed him with last time will affect his vote this time.
Seems I've heard that before.
@%#$%!!!
Funny but probably true...........
Yes, the insurance is so “affordable” that about 85% of policy holders are on some type of subsidy for sh** policies.
Obamacare is worthless.
I want my catastrophic/hospital policy back for about 250 bucks a month with a 5-6 grand deductible.
The other stuff like a doctor’s visit, I’ll pay for myself.
Thumbs up
When a carpenter see’s a nail popping out of a board, he’ll hammer it back down and add another nail. In my opinion, the analogy holds true for the reason the Super Duper Court took up this issue again is because of all the opposition (the nail popping up) to 0care and grabbed a hammer to drive another nail in their pesky problem of 0care.
In other words, I’m not getting anxious or wringing my hands waiting for the verdict in June.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.