Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Again (June 25, 2015)

Forums: Politics, Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, Legal, Supreme Court
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Subsidies remain for the federal exchanges.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

I'm actually focused on catching the Amanda Knox motivations report just as soon as it comes out, but since I also just caught the news of the Supreme Court decision, I figured I'd quickly pass it on.

I will edit in a link when I get one.... Done.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 10,512 • Replies: 26

[+3] - Butrflynet - 06/25/2015Yay!

@oralloy,

Yay!

0 Replies

I've been wondering how this ruling was going to go. Glad they went with common sense.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I am disappointed with this decision.

I think it was the correct decision, but the Supreme Court really let the GOP presidential candidates off the hook with this one. If this decision had gone the other way, the Republican candidates would have had to explain what their plan is.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Meanwhile millions of Americans would lose their health care.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Meanwhile millions of Americans would lose their health care.

Yeah... but only in red states.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

And that would be okay with you?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If they want healthcare, they can choose to elect Democrats.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Not sure if that is a "yes" or "no"...

...but New Jersey is hardly a Red State...but people in our state would have been impacted if the decision had been different.

Under any circumstances, Max, part of Revelette's point is that a bit of compassion goes a long way. People losing their medical coverage...whether they vote D or R...is not a desirable thing.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

True. I just hope a republican is not elected and these nuts get their way of repealing the ACA.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

New Jersey voters elected Chris Christie, who is a Republican, two times. He vetoed the State Health Exchange.

The Supreme Court just shielded the New Jersey voters from their mistake. If people don't have to face the consequences of their mistakes, how will they ever learn?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

New Jersey voters elected Chris Christie, who is a Republican, two times. He vetoed the State Health Exchange.

The Supreme Court just shielded the New Jersey voters from their mistake. If people don't have to face the consequences of their mistakes, how will they ever learn?

I repeat...New Jersey is hardly a Red State.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Dosent surprise me that they fronted for the republican politicians. After all their are 5 ultra conservative republicans on the supreme court.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If this decision had gone the other way, the Republican candidates would have had to explain what their plan is.

I don't see why a different decision would have forced any activity from Republicans.

However, you are underestimating the ability of politicians to come up with a replacement for a program they don't like, that sounds wonderful to voters while still gutting the program.

Forcing the Republicans to come up with something different isn't going to trap them. It will merely give them an opportunity to destroy the program.

maxdancona wrote:

If they want healthcare, they can choose to elect Democrats.

What about those of us who want healthcare but don't want the Second Amendment to be violated?

Why should we have to choose one or the other?

At any rate, five Supreme Court decisions still to come, including gay marriage, the legality of the drugs used in those botched executions, and whether ballot initiatives outlawing congressional gerrymandering pass constitutional muster.

At least one decision (but not all five) will come today at 10 AM eastern time. Anyone interested might want to watch the news from 10:00 to 10:20 this morning. I probably won't be online right at that moment to post breaking news if one of the big ones come.

2 Replies

"tweet from politico" wrote:

Interns race back to the media with copies of the King v. Burwell ruling at the Supreme Court
http://twitter.com/politico/status/614079976351113216

Designer clothes and running shoes. (At least according to one of the responding tweets. I wouldn't know a Burberry shirt from a dishrag myself.)

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Oralloy,

The first concern of an elected politician is to not piss off voters. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, then the news would have been about millions of people in states run by Republicans losing their health care.

Republicans in Congress would act quickly in self-interest so that they wouldn't be blamed for people losing out. If there is one thing you can count on, it is that politicians will act in self-interest.

Here is the hard part... Republican politicians would take flack from their right flank for giving health care subsidies for the states. But this would be the lesser of two evils for them. The right flank has no place to go... losing normal voters is not something they want to think about.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

#Jiggerypokery! Mad

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

What about those of us who want healthcare but don't want the Second Amendment to be violated?

You have to get off your butt and stop electing pro-gun, anti healthcare politictians. Find some pro-gun, pro-healthcare politicians and work hard to get them into office. There are several Democrats that fit the bill. Maybe some moderate Republicans too. As long as we keep electing radical right wing politicans because they happen to support the second amendment, you don't have a choice.

1 Reply

It always seems strange to me that a rich country like the USA would actually debate whether or not to help their poor . I can remember when Oz didn't have health care and people could die for want of care . What is wrong with the rich in the USA ?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The first concern of an elected politician is to not piss off voters. If the Supreme Court had ruled the other way, then the news would have been about millions of people in states run by Republicans losing their health care.

Republicans in Congress would act quickly in self-interest so that they wouldn't be blamed for people losing out. If there is one thing you can count on, it is that politicians will act in self-interest.

You forget that most voters are stupid, and that politicians from both parties are skilled in manipulating stupid voters.

The Republicans would have had no trouble ducking the blame while not fixing the program (or even making it worse).

As one possible example, they could simply say that it is the Left's fault for creating a defective program to begin with.

If that was not enough cover for them, they could pass something that they claimed as a fix for the problem, but that Mr. Obama would be guaranteed to veto.

0 Replies

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Again (June 25, 2015)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know