Hope to repeal Obamacare

[RonD1120 58]

1. It has cost me and members of my family more money.
2. Administratively determined treatment is based on cost not medical decision.
3. Increased government control over personal choice is a loss of liberty.
4. Increased government control results in increased government control elsewhere.
5. Indigent healthcare was available before Obamacare.
6. People from other countries with socialized medicine came to America to receive treatment because they were dissatisfied where they lived.
7. Many physicians are refusing patients with insurance because it is not cost efficient. They are opening cash only clinics.
8. Cash only clinics do not provide for hospital care.
9. Members of my family were forced to leave physicians they had for a long time because of the physician's choice to refuse the insurance.
10. In America financial gain is a motivator for excellence along with competition. Socialized medicines destroys both.

That's all that came to mind at this point. I'm sure I can think of more.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 622]

I very much doubt many others have had half these issues.
I've seen none of those.

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

I very much doubt many others have had half these issues.
I've seen none of those.

Quote

1. It has cost me and members of my family more money.
Almost everyone's out of pocket went up.

2. Administratively determined treatment is based on cost not medical decision.
Meh, insurance companies are the same same same

3. Increased government control over personal choice is a loss of liberty.
Opinion only.

4. Increased government control results in increased government control elsewhere.
That is the governments MO.

5. Indigent healthcare was available before Obamacare.
True

6. People from other countries with socialized medicine came to America to receive treatment because they were dissatisfied where they lived.
True, and the opposite is true as well.

7. Many physicians are refusing patients with insurance because it is not cost efficient. They are opening cash only clinics.
I have seen this, especially freestanding ER's

8. Cash only clinics do not provide for hospital care.
Clinics are not hospitals

9. Members of my family were forced to leave physicians they had for a long time because of the physician's choice to refuse the insurance.
Along with about 30 million other Americans, funnily enough, about the same number that were supposed to be helped by "free healthcare", except even the ones that were supposed to be helped, refuse the enrollment, which makes it that more were harmed than helped.

10. In America financial gain is a motivator for excellence along with competition. Socialized medicines destroys both.
Hampers, lessens, trivializes, but not destroy.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[cvfd1399 0]

If they run healthcare like they do the TSA it's gonna be a blast. The TSA has costs us $7.9 billion a year, has a 96% failure rate, and 73 of the son of a bitches are/were employed with links to terrorism!!

[champu 1]

As an update to this post I made a couple years ago...

From 2011 to 2012 my contribution went up 3.56% (*4.86%)
From 2012 to 2013 my contribution went up 10.39% (*7.06%)
From 2013 to 2014 my contribution went up 15.64% (*24.39%)
From 2014 to 2015 my contribution went up 28.40% (*18.66%)
From 2015 to 2016 my contribution went up 39.17% (*50.37%)

(*parenthetical numbers are if I include the sum total of medical, dental, and vision coverage in the calculations)

The Box DD numbers don't really line up with these changes cleanly because the W2 is on a calendar year and the above are on a July 1 - June 30 plan year, and I only have a couple, but my percentage of the plan cost has stayed roughly the same each year so far.

Also, over the last three years my annual HRA allocation** has gone from $1200 to $1000 to $400 and new this next plan year is you only get half your allocation if you don't get an annual physical. Prescription drugs also no longer count towards meeting your deductible or out of pocket maximum and they are no longer automatically paid for out of the HRA, they did until this upcoming plan year.

**if you're not familiar with an HRA, it's like a traditional PPO except you have a higher deductible but you get an annual allocation that pays your initial costs and that rolls over year to year. Having your allocation go down is essentially like having your deductible go up by that amount.

My access to doctors hasn't really changed but you can kinda see the trend my costs are on.

[okalb 78]

RonD1120

Thanks for responding.

1. It has cost me and members of my family more money. [My family coverage went down by $200/month]

2. Administratively determined treatment is based on cost not medical decision. [This is not anything new. Insurance companies have refused to cover expensive treatments or made you fight to get coverage since their inception. The less they pay out, the more they profit]

3. Increased government control over personal choice is a loss of liberty. [I agree with you for the most part but that only matters if you are alive and healthy]

4. Increased government control results in increased government control elsewhere. [Without specifics it is pretty hard to counter statements like this]

5. Indigent healthcare was available before Obamacare. [yes it was and it cost the taxpayers a fortune, it just wasn’t classified as medical costs]

6. People from other countries with socialized medicine came to America to receive treatment because they were dissatisfied where they lived. [Many American’s also went to other countries to get treatment because they couldn’t afford treatment here]

7. Many physicians are refusing patients with insurance because it is not cost efficient. They are opening cash only clinics. [Maybe you should find a doctor that cares more about helping sick people than they do about profits]

8. Cash only clinics do not provide for hospital care. [They didn't before Obamacare so it is irrelevant]

9. Members of my family were forced to leave physicians they had for a long time because of the physician's choice to refuse the insurance. [See response to #7]

10. In America financial gain is a motivator for excellence along with competition. Socialized medicines destroys both. [If that is the case, then why is the US consistently ranked among the lowest for healthcare worldwide]

That's all that came to mind at this point. I'm sure I can think of more.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[normiss 622]

Except for the political rhetoric, and the things that are not attributed to the ACA, everything else has been true as long as I have had health coverage.
I can't blame anything on the ACA, although they covered my domestic partner prior to us getting married....but that was a good company policy and not a legal requirement anyway and was in place prior to the enactment of the ACA.
A few of our coverages and claims cost us more than they could, and always have. We have made the choice to go our of plan for a few things.
Dentist? NOT going to the meat market for that.
Eyecare? Bought the increased coverage and chose to go out of plan here too.

[RonD1120 58]

Point noted and taken.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[headoverheels 291]

okalb

7. Many physicians are refusing patients with insurance because it is not cost efficient. They are opening cash only clinics. [Maybe you should find a doctor that cares more about helping sick people than they do about profits]

I'm not affected by this at present, but I've seen signs in two of my doctors' offices that state that they do not accept ACA insurance. Single payer would pretty much fix this issue. Sure, there would still be some exceptional doctors that cater to those who can pay more, but for 90% of the people it would be fixed.

BTW, two of my wife's doctors didn't accept insurance, and that was 10 years ago. She could still turn the expenses in to her insurance, but only got reimbursed for out of network percentage of their allowed payment.

Hey, at least the cash only clinics can tell you up front what various things are going to cost you!

Quote

9. Members of my family were forced to leave physicians they had for a long time because of the physician's choice to refuse the insurance. [See response to #7]

See response to #7

Quote

10. In America financial gain is a motivator for excellence along with competition. Socialized medicines destroys both. [If that is the case, then why is the US consistently ranked among the lowest for healthcare worldwide]

Well, not the lowest worldwide, just for developed countries.

[Andy9o8 0]

RonD1120

Christians man your prayer stations. Libertarians take note. Republicans vote.


http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/05/the-new-congressional-plan-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoguqvMZKXonjHpfsX56O4vX661lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JRMVhI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

D'oh!!

[Amazon 7]

Andy9o8

***Christians man your prayer stations. Libertarians take note. Republicans vote.


http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/05/the-new-congressional-plan-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoguqvMZKXonjHpfsX56O4vX661lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JRMVhI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

D'oh!!

More RINO's on the bench only 3 REAL GOP appointees that Ron and company can "rely" on....

[kallend 1,623]

Amazon

******Christians man your prayer stations. Libertarians take note. Republicans vote.


http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/05/the-new-congressional-plan-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoguqvMZKXonjHpfsX56O4vX661lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JRMVhI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

D'oh!!

More RINO's on the bench only 3 REAL GOP appointees that Ron and company can "rely" on....

Yep. 6-3 decision, with the predictable 3 dissenting.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter,”. wrote Roberts.

Well, "doh" as previous stated.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Indeed. So what if the actual language that was passed didn't authorize it.

To all future Presidents: when Congress hasn't authorized you to do something then fuck it. Go BIG! Congress hasn't declared war? Fuck it. Congress hasn't banned guns totally? Go for it! Congress hasn't done anything to show support for posse comitatus? Fuck it! Go for it! Just do it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Do you not believe the SC should consider legislative intent?

- Dan G

[billvon 2,395]

>Do you not believe the SC should consider legislative intent?

Heck no! They should decide policy and legislate from the . . . wait a minute here . . . .

[headoverheels 291]

Andy9o8

***Christians man your prayer stations. Libertarians take note. Republicans vote.


http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/05/the-new-congressional-plan-to-repeal-and-replace-obamacare/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoguqvMZKXonjHpfsX56O4vX661lMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4JRMVhI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

D'oh!!

My prayers were answered.

Now, back to praying away the gay haters.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Do you not believe the SC should consider legislative intent?

I do not believe it should be dispositive. The reason is that laws, not legislative intent, govern our conduct. Period.

When the legislature chooses to specifically fund a subsidy for state exchanges and then omits that funding from that which states do not participate in, then what happens? We look at the law and it says "if this then that. If not this? Then don't do that."

The ONLY way a person can comply with a law is that the person can read it. Law: To increase educational opportunities, the we shall creatE the Federal University and shall consist of seven campuses with one each in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

Now, what does that mean? Shall the President then direct the construction of thirty more campuses? Hey, he thinks that there needs to be a bunch more and the intention is to increase educational opportunities.

This is what happened. The President decided that despite the lack of Congressional authorization he'd fund the citizens of thirty states. For the purpose of improving insurance markets (that is, to grease the insurance companies to ensure profit by directing taxpayer funds to them)

The SCOTUS has just approved dictator. See, intent can mean anything. One can find some intent and run with it. But we are not governed by intent. We are governed by words. And if they didn't read what they did because they had tk pass it first, then their bad.

This is exactly why I don't like intent. Because intent isn't part of the law. The language of the law controls out conduct. We are left without notice of what a law means if laws themselves can be contradicted because "we don't think they really meant to limit it to a specific seven states."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

lawrocket

***Do you not believe the SC should consider legislative intent?

I do not believe it should be dispositive. The reason is that laws, not legislative intent, govern our conduct. Period.

When the legislature chooses to specifically fund a subsidy for state exchanges and then omits that funding from that which states do not participate in, then what happens? We look at the law and it says "if this then that. If not this? Then don't do that."

The ONLY way a person can comply with a law is that the person can read it. Law: To increase educational opportunities, the we shall creatE the Federal University and shall consist of seven campuses with one each in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

Now, what does that mean? Shall the President then direct the construction of thirty more campuses? Hey, he thinks that there needs to be a bunch more and the intention is to increase educational opportunities.

This is what happened. The President decided that despite the lack of Congressional authorization he'd fund the citizens of thirty states. For the purpose of improving insurance markets (that is, to grease the insurance companies to ensure profit by directing taxpayer funds to them)

The SCOTUS has just approved dictator. See, intent can mean anything. One can find some intent and run with it. But we are not governed by intent. We are governed by words. And if they didn't read what they did because they had tk pass it first, then their bad.

This is exactly why I don't like intent. Because intent isn't part of the law. The language of the law controls out conduct. We are left without notice of what a law means if laws themselves can be contradicted because "we don't think they really meant to limit it to a specific seven states."

Roberts' reasoning puts yours to shame, AND provides precedents.

Excerpts:

1. When analyzing an agency's interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency's interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. This approach "is premised on the theory that a statute's ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps." FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000). "In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation." Ibid.

This is one of those cases... If the statutory language is plain, we must enforce it according to its terms. Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 560 U. S. 242, 251 (2010). But oftentimes the "meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context." Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 132. So when deciding whether the language is plain, we must read the words "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Id., at 133 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our duty, after all, is "to construe statutes, not isolated provisions." Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U. S. 280, 290 (2010).



2. If we give the phrase "the State that established the Exchange" its most natural meaning, there would be no "qualified individuals" on Federal Exchanges. But the Act clearly contemplates that there will be qualified individuals on every Exchange.

As we just mentioned, the Act requires all Exchanges to "make available qualified health plans to qualified individuals"—something an Exchange could not do if there were no such individuals. §18031(d)(2)(A). And the Act tells the Exchange, in deciding which health plans to offer, to consider "the interests of qualified individuals . . . in the State or States in which such Exchange operates"—again, something the Exchange could not do if qualified individuals did not exist. §18031(e)(1)(B). This problem arises repeatedly throughout the Act. See, e.g., §18031(b)(2) (allowing a State to create "one Exchange . . . for providing . . . services to both qualified individuals and qualified small employers," rather than creating separate Exchanges for those two groups).

These provisions suggest that the Act may not always use the phrase "established by the State" in its most natural sense. Thus, the meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context.



3. The upshot of all this is that the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]" is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal—at least for purposes of the tax credits.



4. The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.



5. Anyway, we "must do our best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Utility Air Regulatory Group, 573 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reading Section 36B along with other related provisions in the Act, we cannot conclude that the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [Section 18031]" is unambiguous.



6. Petitioners' arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong. But while the meaning of the phrase "an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]" may seem plain "when viewed in isolation," such a reading turns out to be "untenable in light of [the statute] as a whole." Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.



7. In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—"to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.



8. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress's plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

It's Roberts' theory. It's a longstanding debate.

I hope you're never on the losing end of being told "the statutory scheme obviously contemplates that your conduct is illegal" if you were to protest "there isn't a law against that."

And j pray like hell Santorum doesn't make it in. He'll be a junkie for "intent."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,395]

Big news; a decision that many conservatives have been anticipating for months. Let's see how it's reported on the news websites:

===========
BBC headline:

Thursday, 25 June

The US Supreme Court has handed President Barack Obama a major victory by upholding a key portion of his landmark healthcare law.
============
Yahoo News headline:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the provision of tax subsidies under the 2010 Affordable Care Act . . .

SCOTUS Obamacare ruling: 2016 presidential candidates weigh in
===========
FOX News headline:

Mystery surrounds American who disappeared on pilgrimage in Spain

WHEN DENISE THIEM set out in April on a stretch of the ancient Catholic pilgrimage known as the Camino de Santiago, it was the last time she was seen; now, almost 3 months after her disappearance, her family is demanding to know what is being done to find her.
============

Wait, what? They don't think it's that important? They've been talking about it nonstop for MONTHS! Surely it is the second to top story:

-Mother, baby rescued 4 days after Colombia plane crash in jungle

Not the second story either . . .where is it? Oh, there it is, story #4 on the page:

"PURE APPLESAUCE" Scalia blasts ObamaCare ruling in scathing dissent
ObamaCare battle not over, despite court ruling
VIDEO: Scalia's scathing dissent
READ the ObamaCare decision, dissent
VIDEO: Obama on ruling Chief Justice Roberts affirms: ObamaCare was poorly written

So much for "we report. you decide . . . "

[kallend 1,623]

lawrocket

It's Roberts' theory. It's a longstanding debate.

He cites precedent for the logic of the majority. You haven't provided any for yours.

Anyhow, the GOP must be relieved that they are off the hook for making any actual decisions beyond sniping.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AndyBoyd 0]

kallend

***It's Roberts' theory. It's a longstanding debate.

He cites precedent for the logic of the majority. You haven't provided any for yours.

Anyhow, the GOP must be relieved that they are off the hook for making any actual decisions beyond sniping.

In fairness to Lawrocket, there are a few judges left out there who agree with him. Scalia is one, and Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit is another. This is from an old law review article of Easterbrook's that I stumbled across after looking at this thread today. "The words of the statute, not the intent of the drafters, are 'the law'." The idea does carry a certain logical force, but it is a very conservative view that is losing steam, for the reasons quoted in Kallend's earlier post. Had the conservatives won this one, 8.2 million people would have lost their heath insurance over a very small error in drafting a very large and complex law. The more moderate conservatives like Roberts weren't willing to do that kind of damage to that many people, so they interpreted the statute in a way they though the drafters would have wanted. As Kallend points out, there is plenty of precedent for that view. It is a longstanding debate, and the interpreters won this one.

[ryoder 1,381]

From an episode of Garrison Keillor's "A Prairie Home Companion", Saturday, June 28, 2008:


GK: After this message from the Professional Organization of English Majors. Sentence construction is so important and a badly-constructed sentence can cause confusion for years and years. Like this one.

TR: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

GK: What does this mean? Anybody can have a gun? Or just people who belong to a Militia? Or just people on the fringe?

TR: A well regulated Militia, comma, being necessary to the security of a free State, comma, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, comma, shall not be infringed, period. — That means I can have this gun and if you want to take it away from me, English major— go ahead. Make my day. (GUNSHOT)

GK: The shot went wildly off target as the English major, moving with the swiftness of a puma, kicked the gun out of the non-Militiaman's hand —(

TR: OOOFFF) — and simultaneously pressed his thumb to the gunman's right temporal lobe , directing blood to the syntax cortex.

TR: I no longer feel the urge to bear arms, now that acupressure has made me aware of the power of words. Thanks, English Major.

GK: A message from the Professional Organization of English Majors.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[RonD1120 58]

It is now to be referred to as "SCOTUScare."

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Andy9o8 0]

RonD1120

It is now to be referred to as "SCOTUScare."

Yeah, that's catchy, you go with that.
Mothers will think you're saying "scrotum", and pull their children away from the crazy geezer.