Keukasmallies Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) POTUS, aka teflon guy, strikes again. Once again the administration blurs the line between enforcing and enacting law by exempting the territories from the ACA. Those lucky bastards! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/24/obamacare-free-getaway-for-5-us-territories/ Edited July 24, 2014 by Keukasmallies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Yes they can't make Nancy Pelosi's less-than-minimum-wage workers pizzed off. Now can they? Certainly not now, that it's looking like any subsidy they might get would be invalid because they're not States just Territories. They probably didn't have their own exchanges set up anyway. Oh what comfort there is I when you rely on the plantation masters for mana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 Certainly not now, that it's looking like any subsidy they might get would be invalid because they're not States just Territories. Note to Congress: next time, find out what's in it BEFORE you pass it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2014 Share Posted July 24, 2014 (edited) "It is not a coincidence... that judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents have divided along party lines in these cases." by Prof. Ann Althouse "I do not believe this is because Republicans dislike Obamacare and Democrats like it. It is because Republican presidents now appoint judges who stick to textualism even when it leads to harsh results while Democratic presidents are more likely to choose judges who will look at the big picture and the human costs, when they’re parsing the words of a law." Writes lawprof Richard L. Hasen. My question for Hasen: But if a judge is going to look at the big picture and the human costs, won't that perception include his likes and dislikes? I think the answer must be yes, and if so, I believe Hasen — wittingly or unwittingly — conceded that textualism does constrain a judge. Yes, this person — this Scaliaesque entity — will not save us from harsh results, but at the same time, this means that the textualist's idea of what results are, in fact, harsh never becomes part of the analysis. ALSO: A textualist may think he can discipline legislators into writing their statutes clearly, but what can such a project mean with a sprawling text like the Affordable Care Act? Did anyone even read it? Was any legislator in a position even to perceive the loose ends that needed tying up? The original act was intended to coerce the states into setting up the exchanges by putting all of the Medicaid funding at risk. The Supreme Court saved Obamacare by rewriting the statute so that only the Medicaid extension would be lost, otherwise the spending power would not have supported the scheme. So the scheme survived, many states were able to say no, and the federal exchange became necessary. But that was not envisioned by the original statute. A Scalia majority would have taken the entire statutory scheme down in 2012, and we wouldn't be talking about this new set of cases. In the new cases, no one can find the text needed to make the federal exchange work, and it's no surprise that there's nothing in the text that addresses the remnant of the ACA that was left after the Supreme Court saved us from what Chief Justice Roberts — in his Republican-appointed nontextuality — might have considered a "harsh result." Edited July 24, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Just called up the sports doctor and he is going to see me about my elbow tomorrow at 2! Boom! Access to affordable health care is not a luxury but a right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Just called up the sports doctor and he is going to see me about my elbow tomorrow at 2! Boom! Access to affordable health care is not a luxury but a right Which Amendment to the Constitution is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Just called up the sports doctor and he is going to see me about my elbow tomorrow at 2! Boom! Access to affordable health care is not a luxury but a right Does affordable mean free or just competitively priced? Who pays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Which Amendment to the Constitution is that? No amendment needed Does affordable mean free or just competitively priced? Who pays? For who? The Veterans? I say it should be free for them so the Republicans should stop penny pinching and pass that VA Bill For everyone else affordable. Who pays? Those that can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Wait just one minute, posting this tripe can't possibly have a physical effect on your elbow...or is your sports MD a proctologist given you pull most of these posts out of your @$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) No amendment needed For who? The Veterans? I say it should be free for them so the Republicans should stop penny pinching and pass that VA Bill For everyone else affordable. Who pays? Those that can What about the poor who can't get to a hospital? Don't they have a right to be able to drive to their right of free health care? Quick, free cars for everyone! Edited July 28, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Just called up the sports doctor and he is going to see me about my elbow tomorrow at 2! Boom! Access to affordable health care is not a luxury but a right "The sports doctor"? Is it just me, or does anyone else think Gator might have mistakenly made an appointment at Dicks instead of an actual MD? No wonder they had openings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 "The sports doctor"? Is it just me, or does anyone else think Gator might have mistakenly made an appointment at Dicks instead of an actual MD? No wonder they had openings. Now that's funny! You really are an amazing writer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Just called up the sports doctor and he is going to see me about my elbow tomorrow at 2! Boom! Access to affordable health care is not a luxury but a right No, it's a luxury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 No, it's a luxury. Well, whatever it is I'm glad I have it. Not looking forward to getting old and breaking down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) No, it's a luxury. More importantly, it's a commodity which must be produced by other people, and it is limited in it's supply by markets and production curves. But even more importantly than that, it becomes increasingly obvious that gatorman does not understand the fundamental incompatibility between positive and negative rights. Edited July 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 More importantly, it's a commodity which must be produced by other people, and it is limited in it's supply by markets and production curves. But even more importantly than that, it becomes increasingly obvious that gatorman does not understand the fundamental incompatibility between positive and negative rights. Increasing the demand and ability to pay will also increase the supply. The market will bend to meet the demand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 But even more importantly than that, it becomes increasingly obvious that gatorman does not understand the fundamental incompatibility between positive and negative rights. We'll add that to the list. Increasing the demand and ability to pay will also increase the supply. The market will bend to meet the demand We'll add "supply and demand" to the list, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Increasing the demand and ability to pay will also increase the supply. This doesn't occur in a vacuum. Other factors are hard at work, diminishing the supply of care providers. IE. compensation rendered for services. If it's not a profitable enough endeavor to provide "quality healthcare" at low prices, one of three things will happen: 1. Rationing of available resources. (this is not quality care) 2. Unobtainable care as the supply pool diminishes. (this isn't care, period) 3. Skyrocketing costs in order to accomodate both the massive influx of new patients and maintain or increase the supply of providers. (this isn't affordable) We'll add that to the list. We'll add "supply and demand" to the list, as well. Mm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 This doesn't occur in a vacuum. Other factors are hard at work, diminishing the supply of care providers. IE. compensation rendered for services. If it's not a profitable enough endeavor to provide "quality healthcare" at low prices, one of three things will happen: 1. Rationing of available resources. (this is not quality care) 2. Unobtainable care as the supply pool diminishes. (this isn't care, period) 3. Skyrocketing costs in order to accomodate both the massive influx of new patients and maintain or increase the supply of providers. (this isn't affordable) Mm... So many doctors here are foreigners for a reason. they get well compensated. Spending money helps attract the best and brightest to us and fills in the demand vacuum. We'll add that to the list. We'll add "supply and demand" to the list, as well. Oh no! There is a list! :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 There is no requirement that the states must create a healthcare insurance exchange. None. Of course not. That is one of the working parts of the political trap. IF they had forced ALL states to create exchanges, they would have trapped themselves politically: the Red States would howl about the expense, the government overreach, and on and on. Essentially they would have given the right a 2012 election-winning issue. They didn't want to take that risk, especially since the "public option" hand been roundly rejected by members of their own party, in the House and Senate, which they controlled. No. For the trap to work, it had to operate on the R governors making a choice: you either "give the people affordable access to health care" or, you suffer the political s-storm the Ds thought they could create. Turns out: the Rs scoffed at them, the people living in R states scoffed at them, and they've now created a s-storm for themselves, in the fact that they clearly can't make the system work as they designed it. That is the point: rather than making a working system, the created a political trap, first, which was also supposed to be capable of working. FAIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts