Posted on 06/06/2015 4:34:29 AM PDT by markomalley
The Democrats will immediately submit a one-line bill correcting the wording of the clause that the court struck down, thus solving the problem. Then what?
I'd say "have a nice life" but you'd have to pay back the taxpayers first for the money you're stealing from us.
Please, they will do no such thing.
But what they’re going to do is seize the narrative and optics. Before you know it, Obamacare will be a Republican issue.
The stupid party will vote to pass it. That's what.
With the so-called "leadership" of that drunk John Boehner and that milquetoast Mitch McConnell what else would happen?
Sure sign of a loser in a lost debate: resort to personal attacks.
Sucks to be you getting exposed for what you really are here on FR isn't it?
"Protect the Bill of Rights" is your screen nic? Really? You may want to consider changing it to "Stealing Money from Taxpayers To Support My Lifestyle."
Seems it'd be more appropriate.
Actually, that is insurance you describe.
Sure they will. It's a simple fix and could be the work of a few hours in the House and Senate. But when the Republicans refuse to support it then Obamacare will be a Republican issue.
No they won't, not at first. Then the Democrats will hang the issue on the Republicans. Then they'll crack.
I think that's exactly what they'll do when they create the "one sentence fix" to Obamacare.
That assumes the USSC strikes Obamacare down which I don't think they'll do.
If we compare what the USSC did with Social Security in 1937 when they ruled Social Security would continue despite it's legal flaws, we have a precedent for the court to follow. And belive me, courts love to follow precedents. It's an excuse to be lazy. The court at that time ruled that since benefits began flowing they were not about to rule to "un-do" what was then a very unpopular law (just like Obamacare.)
I think the modern day USSC is more likely to follow precedent from 1937 with Social Security and adopt the same stance: since "benefits" have already begun flowing in all 50 states they're not going to un-do the law.
That would mean that Republicans would have to do one of the following:
1. Vote to Repeal Obamacare in both the House and Senate because as Judge Roberts and his fellow liberals on the USSC said in their ruling a few years ago, "Obamacare is a TAX." Republicans own both the House and Senate and can simply vote to repeal the tax. Somehow, many people think that the Republican Party has to have something in place to "fix" the problem of repealing the tax. I disagree. The American public largely views Obamacare as a Democrat FORCED mandate that they do not want (with the exception of the minority few who are actually stealing your and my tax dollars to get "coverage.") Voting to repeal Obamacare would be a symbolic act because we all know Obama won't veto his "signature" legislation. I do not believe for a second that Obamacare can be "fixed" nor do I think it's the Republican's responsibility to fix the BROKEN LAW that the DEMOCRAT PARTY foisted upon America.
2. Vote to repeal Obamacare and have enough Democrat votes to over-ride a Presidential veto. As we're going into an election year in about 6 short months, I think it's anyone's guess if enough Democrats will cross over to vote to repeal it. I think 2014 was a clear signal to Congress that Obama needs to be stopped. Certainly enough former Democrat members of Congress probably now regret their voting for Obamacare and sticking by Obama's un-Constitutional acts that maybe there's enough Democrats that are afraid of 2016 that they'd peel off and vote with the Republicans to over-ride a Presidential veto. (That's anyone's guess IMO. We are however, witnessing a fracturing of the Democrat party so there may be a possibility here, even if somewhat remote.)
3. As I think you and I agree, the Republican's will cave on fixing Obamacare if (and that's a huge if in my opinion) the USSC rules that the citizens in those states which did not setup an exchange do not qualify for federal subsidies (transfer of wealth.)
I have my doubts the USSC is going to rule that citizens in the 36 states that did not setup exchanges lose their benefits due to the way the law is written. Remember: this is the same USSC that went well above their Constitutionally defined role to re-write Obamacare to make it a tax. I don't see that the same members of the USSC that re-wrote the law and ruled it Constitutional are going to somehow magically reverse themselves here and say "Oh, wait a minute, the law means what it says!"
We live under a tyranny my friend, and the USSC which is supposed to STOP un-Constutional laws and a President who refuses to follow the Constitution is instead enabling the tyrannical behavior of not only Obama, but the entire Federal Government. I happen to believe that the majority of the Republican Party is as corrupt, if not more so than the Democrats. They don't want to repeal Obamacare because it gives the Federal Government more power over each one of our lives. I don't know about you, but I cannot find a single instance where the Federal Government reversed itself after taking more and more power over our daily lives.
The only thing the Republican's and Democrat's care about is who's sitting in the White House, and who's in control of our daily lives, the D's or the R's.
Yes, I'm that skeptical. I'm just waiting for the tar, feathers, and rope to be broken out on the steps of the Capital and the hanging party to begin. Only then will we be able to start cleaning up this mess.
Just my .02.
link please?
Of course it is health insurance on paper. In reality, not so much.
The toal cost of one Bronze plan $6600 per year with a $6000 individual deductible.
Except for the “free” preventative services offered benefits do not kick in until after the deductible is met.
Do you spend $6000 per year on healthcare? I don’t know many who do. That is why I say no-insurance.
There’s a difference between health insurance and health care. Insurance covers the unexpected; health care covers ‘routine maintenance.’
You receive health care anytime you see a medical professional, regardless of the reason. It is not the same thing as preventative care.
Health Insurance covers health care expenses as determined by a specific health insurance policy.
If (and I know that is a mighty big if) SCOTUS rules subsidies un-constitutional, doesn’t that trigger the sever-ability clause?
To my knowledge, there is no severability clause in this law. The Supremes might create one (sort of like how a penalty was magically converted into a tax and how a tax is magically converted into a penalty), but it's not there.
Of course, for THE WON™, such little things as "laws" don't really matter too much.
Insurance covers less likely events, 'health care' covers predictable and routine events.
Full Definition of HEALTH CARE
: efforts made to maintain or restore health especially by trained and licensed professionals —usually hyphenated when used attributively
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.