ACA...Hooray for The Supremes

[MAKAVELI]

Affordable Care Act. Only......it's not affordable for everyone that is supposed to benefit from it and it is certainly not affordable for the federal government to subsidize it. You know the fed is trillions of dollars in debt right?

But I digress....Americans are now required to buy a product or face a penalty. Enough said.

It seems to have made it more affordable and accessible to the people that could not have afforded or access health care before. The ACA is doing what it was intended for.

 

[Babagounj]

Funny how when they rule on laws like Citizens United or the Hobby Lobby decision, it's all OK.

As Justice Antonin Scalia makes clear in his dissent, the six justices actually rewrote the Affordable Care Act instead of interpreting it. Scalia wrote that the legacy of the Roberts Court will be “forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

A normal person would be very upset by this court's actions . The rule of law no longer applies in this country . WE have officially become a third world banana republic .

 

[bbsam]

That won't last.

30% to 60% plan increases coming.

Good luck with that.

That's no different than before the ACA.

 

[bbsam]

As Justice Antonin Scalia makes clear in his dissent, the six justices actually rewrote the Affordable Care Act instead of interpreting it. Scalia wrote that the legacy of the Roberts Court will be “forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

A normal person would be very upset by this court's actions . The rule of law no longer applies in this country . WE have officially become a third world banana republic .

From what I have read, they did not rewrite it but interpreted the four words in question with respect to the other 3000 pages.

 

[Brownslave688]

From what I have read, they did not rewrite it but interpreted the four words in question with respect to the other 3000 pages.

How does one interpret state as federal?


If one does it changes what it said.

 

[bbsam]

How does one interpret state as federal?


If one does it changes what it said.

By taking the overall intent of the legislation into consideration. Something that Roberts noted Scalia has insisted on in past eulings.

 

[Brownslave688]

By taking the overall intent of the legislation into consideration. Something that Roberts noted Scalia has insisted on in past eulings.

If the Supreme Court is now judging intent then they are rewriting laws. To me the Supreme Court has become a bit of a joke that's often split down party lines anyway. Wether or not somethinng is constitutional shouldn't fall down party lines.

 

[bbsam]

If the Supreme Court is now judging intent then they are rewriting laws. To me the Supreme Court has become a bit of a joke that's often split down party lines anyway. Wether or not somethinng is constitutional shouldn't fall down party lines.

Judging intent has always been part of judicial duty.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Judging intent has always been part of judicial duty.

Perhaps those drafting legislation should be more precise in their verbiage.

 

[av8torntn]

Judging intent has always been part of judicial duty.

But how do they change the intent of the language after it was written and passed into law? That seems an odd thing to celebrate.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Ok, lets see if I can understand your ignorance for a moment.

You are MANDATED to buy auto insurance, you are MANDATED to buy Home owners insurance when you buy a home, you are MANDATED to buy Motorcycle insurance if you ride a motorycycle, you are MANDATED to buy aiplane insurance if you fly a plane and now, you feel that making you buy health insurance is going too far???

There is NOTHING unconstitutional about the ACA..

The seaman act was a mandate, passed by the congress and signed into law by one of the founding fathers. I asked you if "HE" had a liberal mental illness and the best you can do is come back with the same old tired talking points of the Right wing that you have repeated for 6 years now.

The court did its job. It ruled on the law. It ruled on the history of mandated insurance with fees, taxes and levys.

I get it, you butt is hurt cause you got the smack down, and despite all the right wing blabber over the years, the conservatives on the bench had to DITCH you and your party and rule on the constitutionality of the law.

Sorry bro, This fight is over.

You guys are out of bullets , sotospeak.

Maybe if you can start a new shooting war (civil war) you can kill all the justices and impose your ignorance on whoever is left in the USA.

I am sure the terrorists around the world will love you for taking down the country.

TOS.

If you were able to use logic (as mentioned before) you'd see the idiocy in your comparing auto, home, and airplane insurance to the ACA. And this is the hilarious part..... your own words "when you ride them", "when you buy a home", " when you fly", should have clued you in to the fact that we are not REQUIRED to buy any of those products. We are only required to carry the insurance for these products if WE decide to purchase them. There is no government mandate for us to purchase those products.

Wow, and you people can vote. That is freaking scary. There is no hope for this country or the human race with people like you running things.

 

[realbrown1]

That's no different than before the ACA.

Oh yes it is.

Big time.

Congratulations.

 

[bbsam]

But how do they change the intent of the language after it was written and passed into law? That seems an odd thing to celebrate.

As Roberts noted, the intent of the law was to make health care more affordable for everyone. The entire law is designed with that in mind and is not subjugated by 4 words..

 

[av8torntn]

If you were able to use logic (as mentioned before) you'd see the idiocy in your comparing auto, home, and airplane insurance to the ACA. And this is the hilarious part..... your own words "when you ride them", "when you buy a home", " when you fly", should have clued you in to the fact that we are not REQUIRED to buy any of those products. We are only required to carry the insurance for these products if WE decide to purchase them. There is no government mandate for us to purchase those products.

Wow, and you people can vote. That is freaking scary. There is no hope for this country or the human race with people like you running things.

In my state you do not even have to buy auto insurance. You either have liability insurance or the ability to pay for any damage that you cause.

 

[av8torntn]

As Roberts noted, the intent of the law was to make health care more affordable for everyone. The entire law is designed with that in mind and is not subjugated by 4 words..

The intent of that part of the law was to give an incentive for the states to set up an exchange. It didn't work so if congress wanted it fixed they should amend it not have some unelected judges do it for them.

 

[bbsam]

Oh yes it is.

Big time.

Congratulations.

No, it isn't. I've been buying insurance for 14 years now.

 

[oldngray]

The effect of the ruling will be to eliminate state exchanges. Now there is no incentive or penalty for a state not setting up an exchange. The states that did attempt to create exchanges were disasters so they will all kick it back to the feds to worry about. Just another step towards a single payer system which was the intent all along. Democrats knew Obamacare would be a failure but in the aftermath people would be more willing to accept single payer as an alternative.

 

[bbsam]

The intent of that part of the law was to give an incentive for the states to set up an exchange. It didn't work so if congress wanted it fixed they should amend it not have some unelected judges do it for them.

That's one interpretation. The majority found another one. And as has been pointed out by others, this interpretation is far less strained than interpreting money as speech.

 

[av8torntn]

That's one interpretation. The majority found another one. And as has been pointed out by others, this interpretation is far less strained than interpreting money as speech.

No. It's amazing how the radicals are so hung up on a ruling that allows people to spend their money how they wish.

The majority opinion said they reject the petitioners request because it would destabilize the insurance market in any state with a federal exchange.

 

[realbrown1]

No, it isn't. I've been buying insurance for 14 years now.

If you have had 30% to 60% increases in the past, you'd be paying $5000 a month for health insurance.

The seven years before Obamacare the TOTAL increase was 50%, and that was for 7 years.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/heal...-50-percent-from-2003-to-2010-report-20111117

You liberals just don't get 2 things, reality and math.