Well, by now it has sunk in that this thing isn’t free.
I wonder if it would cost less just to put everyone who is on the dole on a mini-med plan. If I was inclined to bet I would bet yes.
For the few who sought to profiteer off of this at the enforced expense of the rest, shame on them.
Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration bet that they could force the states to do their will. When they lost their bet, the administration ignored the Constitution and ordered the spending of monies that Congress never authorized.
Brilliant explanation. I'm going to use this.
They had nothing to lose. They will never be held to account by DC Republicans.
The debate over the details of Obamacare doesn’t cut to the heart of the problem, the mandate that forced people to buy higher priced health insurance to begin with and cancelled their existing lower cost insurance.
Mitt Romney said there were ‘freeloaders” out there when he discussed ‘health care reform’ and wheeling and dealing to pump more money into insurance companies and hospitals (what the lobbyists wanted all along) was successful and we got the mandate forcing people to buy higher priced health insurance.
Obama dumped in this progressive bell and whistle of subsidies for the new high priced insurance and he lost in a court ruling on this matter, that will move onto to final adjudication one way or the other.....
REPEAL OBAMACARE 100 PERCENT WITH NO SUBSITUTES AND NO MANDATE FOR FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.....
I have always wondered why have separate state and federal exchanges. They all have to follow the federal rules. Why spend all the extra money on a separate exchange?
This explains it. You had to set up the state exchange to get the tax benefits.
Wait till all those Federal dupes find out that subsidies do not apply.
They will all be designated as not signing up and have to pay the penalty. Of course, most of these folks aren't working so can't pay anyways and we're stuck with a broke insurance system.
But there's always money to kill the babies.
The law passed by Congress, Judge Thomas Griffith explained, provided for subsidies in states with state-created exchanges, but not in states with federal exchanges. That's factually correct, and under the Constitution, the government can't spend money not authorized by Congress.
PFL
I’ve felt this way about Obamacare since it was passed, and especially since the roberts decision:
Be careful what you ask for.
Until Obamacare, the biggest failure in US history for me was prohibition. Obamacare tops it significantly. And it crossed a “red” line for me. It is the first time I’ve refused to comply with the law as I see it as immoral and unconstitutional. I cancelled my health insurance on January first and will never have health insurance until Obamacare is appealed. I will also never pay a penalty. I always end up owing the FedGov at tax time and will ensure that carries forward into the future.
They haven’t lost anything yet. The Administration will request a rehearing by the full Appeals Court and they’ll overturn the three-judge ruling.
Not just that the law means only what they need it to mean at the moment, but also that it applies to only whomever they need it to apply to at the moment. That's what SCOTUS would be codifying by overturning this and letting Congressional Democrats get away with this federal subsidy deceit.
They would be endorsing the practice of writing a bill one way out of necessity to get a compromise passed, knowing that Democrats can deny it later and get SCOTUS to write for them what they really wanted all along in the end.
-PJ
I’m NOT a lawyer. But I believe the Supreme Court cannot/will not consider evidence that was not introduced at the appeals level.
Thus somehow, this needs to get into consideration. Not sure how...