Keukasmallies Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) I certainly want all people in the US to have health care, and, call me crazy here, I want it to be done legally so the emphasis is on the delivery of sound health services, not the trumped up shady way the law was developed, passed and implemented. For example, given all the health services-related agencies, departments, and committees in the national government, the administration of the ACA was entrusted to the IRS? Aretha Franklin said it best, "Who's zooming' who?" Edited November 12, 2014 by Keukasmallies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 If Congress' intention was clear, why didn't they make the law clear? If the law isn't clear, how can anyone say Congress' intent is? If we're supposed to judge laws based not on the text of the law but the inferred intent of the authors of the law, then what's the point in having a legal system? I'll field this one: To force people to yield to liberal policy initiatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 I'll field this one: To force people to yield to liberal policy initiatives. I think the more constructive argument is: if the text of the law doesn't accurately reflect the intent of the legislators, then progressives should WANT it struck down so that it can be changed to accurately reflect said intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) I think the more constructive argument is: if the text of the law doesn't accurately reflect the intent of the legislators, then progressives should WANT it struck down so that it can be changed to accurately reflect said intent. Thing is, they know that's a legislative impossibility given the current construction of the House; so the only avenue they have is judicial decry. ... Though, to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the Administration attack a Court in opposition to the Administration as "obstructionist", and "going it alone" because "the other branches of government won't help him do what's right." Edited November 12, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Thing is, they know that's a legislative impossibility given the current construction of the House; so the only avenue they have is judicial decry. Well, golly gee whiz, does it suck to be them. Maybe next time they'll learn to take their time writing important legislation and make sure they !@#$ing get it right the first time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Well, golly gee whiz, does it suck to be them. Maybe next time they'll learn to take their time writing important legislation and make sure they !@#$ing get it right the first time. They got it "right" the first time. They just didn't like the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 They got it "right" the first time. They just didn't like the outcome. Then they didn't get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Then they didn't get it right. Of course they didn't get it right. They got it "right". They don't do incentivization, or cause and effect very well. Further they believe they're too smart to make such obvious errors, and believe the American public to dumb to question them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 From Ron Fournier at tne National Journal ObamaCare’s Foundation Of Lies. A lie is apolitical, or at least it should be. If there is one thing that unites clear-headed Americans, it's a belief that our leaders must be transparent and honest. And yet, there seem to be two types of lies in our political discourse: Those that hurt "my party" and "my policies"; and those that don't. We condemn the former and forgive the latter—cheapening the bond of trust that enables a society to progress This truism came to mind when I read a Washington Post story headlined, "Who Is Jonathon Gruber?" It was an important and workmanlike report on the Obamacare adviser who bragged about the political advantages of deceiving voters, whom Gruber called stupid. "Those comments have struck a nerve on the right," wrote Jose A. DelReal (emphasis added), "with some of the law's critics pointing to Gruber's comments as evidence that the administration intentionally deceived the American public on the costs of the programs." My first reaction was, "No! No! Not just on the right!" I strongly support bipartisan efforts to expand the availability of health coverage to the working poor, and bending the cost curve that threatens federal budgets for years to come. While I think President Obama and congressional Democrats helped contribute to the 2009 standoff over what became the Affordable Care Act, I've openly rooted for Obamacare's success. I've denounced the knee-jerk opposition from the GOP, a party that once embraced key elements of Obamacare. My ideology is amorphous; I am not "on the right." All of that, and yet: Gruber's remarks struck a nerve with me. Appearing on an academic panel a year ago, this key Obamacare adviser argued that the law never would have passed if the administration had been honest about the fact that the so-called penalty for noncompliance with the mandate was actually a tax. "And, basically, call it 'the stupidity of the American voter,' or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass," Gruber said. He called you stupid. He admitted that the White House lied to you. Its officials lied to all of us—Republicans, Democrats, and independents; rich and poor; white and brown; men and women. Liberals should be the angriest. Not only were they personally deceived, but the administration's dishonest approach to health care reform has helped make Obamacare unpopular while undermining the public's faith in an activist government. A double blow to progressives. On top of that, Gruber has helped make the legal case for anti-Obamacare lawyers. In July, a year-old video surfaced in which Gruber said Washington legally withholds money from states that don't create their own health care exchanges. That could be construed by the Supreme Court to buttress the case against health insurance subsidies. More at the link: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 From Ron Fournier at tne National Journal ObamaCare’s Foundation Of Lies. The last time I saw a Gruber fall this badly, his first name was Hans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 It's fairly common for individuals who respond to factual challenges of their positions with vitrol and charges of racism and hatred to get punched in the mouth. That's an observation. Oh, so no mentioning racism ever or violence is ok. Interesting Correct. He was a highly compensated consultant to the White House, for the purposes of the construction of the ACA. He was sought out for his expertise in the arena, due to his work with the Massachusetts health care law. Great, then just call him a consultant like he was. The overwhelming abundance of federal and state officers, advisors, and policy setters are not elected officials. The entire cabinet is unelected. The Secretaries of State, Education, Treasury, etc. The CIA Director. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. When did the Senate approve him for any government post? A prior Court ruling confirms that the existence of Federal exchanges in not in violation of the Constitution. That, however, is not what is in question. The question, a completely seperate issue, is to whether or not the Executive Branch has the authority to unilaterally reinterpret the specific intent of the law, after their stick and carrot scheme has failed. The only purpose of the friggin exchanges is to provide subsidies. There existence proves they were meant by the law to provide them, its what they are for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The only purpose of the friggin exchanges is to provide subsidies. There existence proves they were meant by the law to provide them, its what they are for If only someone had written the law that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The language was intentional. Unless of course your argument is that Democratic legislators are incompetent, and wrote a terrible, unworkable law. under an Origionalist interpretation of the Court's role: Deciding seperation of powers issues between the Executive and Legislative. No, I think they wrote a very long law with a lot of things in it and it had to be changed many times and presto a slight human error. I think the more constructive argument is: if the text of the law doesn't accurately reflect the intent of the legislators, then progressives should WANT it struck down so that it can be changed to accurately reflect said intent. Oh great, Tom wants to tell people what they should want. Yes Tom, this rats nest of a Congress now would sure fix health care to help poor people get health care. They would rather burn those people than help them I'll field this one: To force people to yield to liberal policy initiatives. Can't you say that about any law? If Congress' intention was clear, why didn't they make the law clear? If the law isn't clear, how can anyone say Congress' intent is? If we're supposed to judge laws based not on the text of the law but the inferred intent of the authors of the law, then what's the point in having a legal system? They made a small mistake of omission. Kill the law and people's health insurance because of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 No, I think they wrote a very long law with a lot of things in it and it had to be changed many times and presto a slight human error. Why did it have to be a very long law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Kill the law and people's health insurance because of that? Why did this law kill my health insurance? Why did they take from me and my family that which I had and enjoyed? Why am I and my family being punished? I liked my insurance and I lost it. Obama and the Dems don't give a !@#$ about me. I hope they all get cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 Actually, no. This decision by the Court will actually fall under an Origionalist interpretation of the Court's role: Deciding seperation of powers issues between the Executive and Legislative. Can you be so good as to explain this one for us? I see it more as the court deciding the intent of the law which is so clearly intent because, well, the created the federal exchanges to provide the damn subsides in the first place so obviously it was the Congresses intent to do so or they would not have created them. But do tell us what you meant. Why did it have to be a very long law? Health care is complicated Why did this law kill my health insurance? Why did they take from me and my family that which I had and enjoyed? Why am I and my family being punished? I liked my insurance and I lost it. Obama and the Dems don't give a !@#$ about me. I hope they all get cancer. ha ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The last time I saw a Gruber fall this badly, his first name was Hans. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 That goes for you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The only purpose of the friggin exchanges is to provide subsidies. There existence proves they were meant by the law to provide them, its what they are for An exchange is a marketplace. A place where people go to shop. Exchanges were created so that consumers chould shop for insurance. The act of shopping has nothing to do with subsidies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 12, 2014 Share Posted November 12, 2014 The last time I saw a Gruber fall this badly, his first name was Hans. Both were exceptional thieves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts