Obamacare lost a legal challenge

Obamacare lost a legal challenge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/12/2016 1:06:34 PM)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-judge-hands-win-republicans-obamacare-challenge-164636939.html?ref=gs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday handed a victory to congressional Republicans who challenged President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, ruling that his administration overstepped its constitutional powers relating to government spending.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, based in Washington, ruled that the administration cannot spend billions of dollars in federal funds to provide subsidies under the law known as Obamacare to private insurers without the approval of Congress.

It will be appealed, but continues to show how the legal challenges will continue. If a Republican President is elected, the challenge may never make it to the full circuit or SCOTUS.

Phydeaux -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/12/2016 1:48:27 PM)
Two quick sad things: Obama in an effort to bypass the legislature is having health care providers sue the US government. The government will plead no contest. Bam. Inconvenient rule of law gotten rid of. Secondly - the people that filed this are in an 11-4 appeals court. Which means overturned on appeal and with a 4-4 divided supreme the lower court ruling will stand.

MrRodgers -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/12/2016 10:55:19 PM)
I thought subsidies were in the law. if so, I see no difference between these subsidies than any other. Does congress just need a bigger bribe ? What we do discover from UnitedHealthCare and Humana, is that in the US, if you get sick...you will be of sufficient profit or just do us all a favor...die.

OsideGirl -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/12/2016 11:31:12 PM)
Honestly, I just want to be able to afford health insurance again . $1200 a month with a $5000 per person deductible is ridiculous. Plus, I get to pay a fine because health insurance is too expensive.

Greta75 -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/12/2016 11:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OsideGirl Honestly, I just want to be able to afford health insurance again . $1200 a month with a $5000 per person deductible is ridiculous. Plus, I get to pay a fine because health insurance is too expensive. That is ridiculous! I only pay $600 per annum, with zero deductible. 100% coverage. World wide coverage, any hospital. With guaranteed renewals, means no matter how much I claim, they cannot raise my premiums or put loading on me or refuse to cover me in the future. And my claim limits are 600k per annum, which I think should be sufficient. No lifetime claim limits. US is extortion! Gosh and people here are crying that's too expensive, what we pay! Obamacare really sucks! And we only got 5million people, not everybody bothers to be insured. Although, it's estimated 70% are. Technically, Obamacare with so many more people should be cheaper than us, but it's not! Crazy!

OsideGirl -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/12/2016 11:53:24 PM)
To add insult to injury - before Obamacare our insurance was $377 per month and it was a much better plan.

Greta75 -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/13/2016 12:22:40 AM)
So the question is, who are the people benefiting from Obama care, that Obama keeps saying it has made so many people's lives better? Is it because many who can't afford coverage gets free obama care now? And the cost is passed on to those who can afford to pay?

ProductiveCry -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/13/2016 12:26:52 AM)
Words mean things but in this case words are used to hide the truth. This was called the Affordable Care Act but are you purchasing care? No. You are purchasing insurance. But the president did not call it the Affordable Insurance Act now did he? The FTC might have sued him for bait and switch or at least dishonest advertising. So what we have is the care that you can afford if you have insurance Act. As some of the transcripts of meetings have recently shown, this could have been passed without all of the stipulations for various mandated care paid for by each person but for which most people will never need. And guess what that care that you paid for but will never need is then used to supplement for someone in need who cannot afford insurance. Now you know who the care is Affordable for. This is not about care or insurance or affordability. It's redistribution of wealth that is all this is. This act alone is why Trump is so popular.

Phydeaux -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/13/2016 6:34:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I thought subsidies were in the law. if so, I see no difference between these subsidies than any other. Does congress just need a bigger bribe ? What we do discover from UnitedHealthCare and Humana, is that in the US, if you get sick...you will be of sufficient profit or just do us all a favor...die. Really? Yet in a different post you were against corporate subsidies. It seems your priorities change depending on which democratic idiocy you're addressing. The US government had risk corridors built into the ACA so that companies would reimbursed if they lost too much money. This way, the companies could keep premiums <cough> low. Those corridors expire.

Nnanji -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/13/2016 10:36:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I thought subsidies were in the law. if so, I see no difference between these subsidies than any other. Does congress just need a bigger bribe ? What we do discover from UnitedHealthCare and Humana, is that in the US, if you get sick...you will be of sufficient profit or just do us all a favor...die. Really? Yet in a different post you were against corporate subsidies. It seems your priorities change depending on which democratic idiocy you're addressing. The US government had risk corridors built into the ACA so that companies would reimbursed if they lost too much money. This way, the companies could keep premiums <cough> low. Those corridors expire. The risk corridors were all times to protect democrats. The payments made to companies or insurance increases all happen just after elections so democrats don't have to face the issues during campaigns.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/13/2016 11:24:38 AM)
quote: who are the people benefiting from Obama care The ones who wrote the law...the Insurance companies.

MrRodgers -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/14/2016 10:20:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I thought subsidies were in the law. if so, I see no difference between these subsidies than any other. Does congress just need a bigger bribe ? What we do discover from UnitedHealthCare and Humana, is that in the US, if you get sick...you will be of sufficient profit or just do us all a favor...die. Really? Yet in a different post you were against corporate subsidies. It seems your priorities change depending on which democratic idiocy you're addressing. The US government had risk corridors built into the ACA so that companies would reimbursed if they lost too much money. This way, the companies could keep premiums <cough> low. Those corridors expire. You can't resist can you. I am against corp. subsidies because of course all subsidies go to protect profits as most egregiously...in farming. (like big Ag. top 20% getting 91% of subsidies, bottom 80% get 9%...HERE) from the fed...HERE As I've written and sourced, this is not a democratic or repub issue as this is the same plan that's in Mass. under Romney (R) and also the plan introduced by repubs in 93 to counter so-called 'HillaryCare.' As I've also written, both sides have their whores as they are all for the most part...corrupt. The dems are mere amateurs, the repubs...real pros. Therefore, the attack on these subsidies in court is not an attack on the subsides, it is a political attack on ObamaCare. If there were repub subsidies...they would be sacrosanct.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/14/2016 10:32:05 AM)
Do people really still use yahoo. Live and learn wicked eh! No free health care what a bunch of savages. I am surprised your judges, supreme court, have not consulted God, or that bible thingy, on this issue.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Obamacare lost a legal challenge (5/14/2016 5:04:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I thought subsidies were in the law. if so, I see no difference between these subsidies than any other. Does congress just need a bigger bribe ? What we do discover from UnitedHealthCare and Humana, is that in the US, if you get sick...you will be of sufficient profit or just do us all a favor...die. I don't know that the subsidies at question here are in Obamacare. I think the only subsidies in Obamacare are the ones to help others pay for insurance. The ones in question here are for private insurance companies, to offset losses because enough healthy people didn't sign up. The problem with not adjusting premiums according to risk of payout means you either set rates according to the least healthy and it doesn't matter how many healthy people join, or you make an assumption as to the overall risk of the entire group and hope enough healthy people join in. Unless the cost of care actually dropped, insurance companies are getting fucked over royally.

Page: [1]

Spam Policy

0.0625