Supreme Court to Hear Obamacare Suit

[ksen]

I need to affirm another reality as debates occurring in this Forum always come down to labeling opposing posters to being motivated by a political partisan mentality : mine is NOT. Mine is based on what is humanely acceptable and what is not. It is my humane based experience which makes me cringe and fear each time the GOP attempts to find any justification to impair my access (as well as other millions of human beings' access) to affordable and adequate insurance plans. It is the indifference you, Dismal and Max, show towards those fellow human beings while neither you Dismal, nor Max, nor the GOP have so far presented any viable alternative to the AHCA, for people like me and other millions.

You write us off while pausing as defenders of this "democratic" Republic, oh so endowed with righteousness and such strong sense of correctness. Meanwhile, you write us all off. You want to applaud and cheer for the dismantlement of subsidies and tax credits in 36 States? You'd better be prepared to present a viable alternative promoted and supported by a now GOP majority in your Congress.

And I placed "democratic" in quotes because for some of us, we do not define this nation as an actual democracy in view of your corrupted electoral system.

This is an adult discussion about a law. It really has nothing to do with any of us here.

It really has nothing to do with anything you just said.

Cheering on the side that is trying to revoke access to the US medical system for millions is the adult side?

 

[James Madison]

‘‘(21) EXCHANGE
—The term ‘Exchange’ means an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.’’

This seems to imply that there is a defining of Exchange and it is taken solely from 1311.

This risks weakening the government's argument as 1311 references and discusses solely the State creating/establishing exchanges and nothing else, which then risks the meaning of the word "exchange" being attached to 1311 to the exclusion of an exchange discussed under 1321, which is an exchange created/established by the Secretary of Health.

 

[dismal]

This is an adult discussion about a law. It really has nothing to do with any of us here.

It really has nothing to do with anything you just said.

Cheering on the side that is trying to revoke access to the US medical system is the adult side?

Cheering on the rule of law. I tend to place the rule of law even above partisan fanboyism.

 

[ksen]

Cheering on the side that is trying to revoke access to the US medical system is the adult side?

Cheering on the rule of law. I tend to place the rule of law even above partisan fanboyism.

Rooting for the Cato lawsuit to win is hardly being above "partisan fanboyism."

 

[Sabine Grant]

I need to affirm another reality as debates occurring in this Forum always come down to labeling opposing posters to being motivated by a political partisan mentality : mine is NOT. Mine is based on what is humanely acceptable and what is not. It is my humane based experience which makes me cringe and fear each time the GOP attempts to find any justification to impair my access (as well as other millions of human beings' access) to affordable and adequate insurance plans. It is the indifference you, Dismal and Max, show towards those fellow human beings while neither you Dismal, nor Max, nor the GOP have so far presented any viable alternative to the AHCA, for people like me and other millions.

You write us off while pausing as defenders of this "democratic" Republic, oh so endowed with righteousness and such strong sense of correctness. Meanwhile, you write us all off. You want to applaud and cheer for the dismantlement of subsidies and tax credits in 36 States? You'd better be prepared to present a viable alternative promoted and supported by a now GOP majority in your Congress.

And I placed "democratic" in quotes because for some of us, we do not define this nation as an actual democracy in view of your corrupted electoral system.

This is an adult discussion about a law. It really has nothing to do with any of us here.

It really has nothing to do with anything you just said.

On the contrary, it is profoundly relevant to the catastrophic consequences of impairing the delivery of affordable insurance plans in 36 states. And I will add that I consider my post to Max being in fact an adult discussion which corrected his depicting of the why supporters of the AHCA are "angry". Unless you view such reconnecting to existing and undeniable realities ,and in view of Max' comments, to be of a juvenile nature. In that case, I will expect that you do more than invalidating my comments with your claim but demonstrate how and why they are not an "adult discussion" directly connected to the actual why supporters of the AHCA are "angry".Considering that the elimination of subsidies would undeniably result in catastrophic effects on folks enrolled in the ACHA Exchange plans in 36 States.

This incessant quibbling which was prompted by the OP regarding the actual intent of the term "established by the State" versus "established by a State" in no way addresses forthcoming catastrophic consequences. I suppose more energy is to be invested in this quibbling portrayed as an "adult discussion over a law" than which outcomes are to be expected.While the later is to be qualified by you as not being an "adult discussion" because it does not fuel the said quibbling, rather is connected to the existing realities of a catastrophic outcome. And one which would be prompted by the persistent and ongoing determination of the GOP to dig up any rationalization to undermine the AHCA.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This seems to imply that there is a defining of Exchange and it is taken solely from 1311.

This risks weakening the government's argument as 1311 references and discusses solely the State creating/establishing exchanges and nothing else, which then risks the meaning of the word "exchange" being attached to 1311 to the exclusion of an exchange discussed under 1321, which is an exchange created/established by the Secretary of Health.

How can you possibly imagine that people with insurance from Exchanges run by States or the Federal Government would have any different standing under the Public Health Service Act, of which this portion of the ACA is amending?

1311 explains what an Exchange is, its roll, responsibilities, etc...

What 1526 does is specifically call out where to find the definition of the Exchange is. 1321 covers the contingency of how to specifically manage an Exchange as defined in 1311 for a state that doesn't create one.

So we have a pre-existing piece of legislation created in the 40's that gets amended. That amendment goes into a list of terms being defined related to health care coverage. Only one type is added, "Exchange".

 

[Sabine Grant]

Cheering on the rule of law. I tend to place the rule of law even above partisan fanboyism.

Rooting for the Cato lawsuit to win is hardly being above "partisan fanboyism."

Especially when the "rooting for the Cato lawsuit to win" happens to be fully compatible with a member's long history of comments showing a preference towards one political party. I, at least, clearly explained in my post to Max why there is no way I can support or promote a win. My explanation being void of any motivation by any allegiance to any political party. If the GOP had been the promoter and advocate for the AHCA, I would still be unable to support or promote a win resulting in the elimination of subsidies in 36 States.

 

[ksen]

If the GOP had been the promoter and advocate for the AHCA

The funny thing is they were promoting and advocating the AHCA back in the early 90s. It only became a country-destroyer when a black, muslim usurper signed it into law.

But we're the ones engaging in "partisan fanboyism."

 

[Sabine Grant]

If the GOP had been the promoter and advocate for the AHCA

The funny thing is they were promoting and advocating the AHCA back in the early 90s. It only became a country-destroyer when a black, muslim usurper signed it into law.

But we're the ones engaging in "partisan fanboyism."

Further anyone who pronounces such claim ,

Cheering on the rule of law. I tend to place the rule of law even above partisan fanboyism.

better be prepared to show consistency. Especially in a nation where the very body entrusted to interpret the content and intent of the US Constitution is unfortunately affected by their own "partisan fanboyism". Last I checked, there is a definite political affiliation at play among SCOTUS Justices.

 

[dismal]

Cheering on the rule of law. I tend to place the rule of law even above partisan fanboyism.

Rooting for the Cato lawsuit to win is hardly being above "partisan fanboyism."

I just want to see this case, like any other case, decided according to the text of the law and existing legal precedents.

- - - Updated - - -

This is an adult discussion about a law. It really has nothing to do with any of us here.

It really has nothing to do with anything you just said.

On the contrary, it is profoundly relevant to the catastrophic consequences of impairing the delivery of affordable insurance plans in 36 states. And I will add that I consider my post to Max being in fact an adult discussion which corrected his depicting of the why supporters of the AHCA are "angry". Unless you view such reconnecting to existing and undeniable realities ,and in view of Max' comments, to be of a juvenile nature. In that case, I will expect that you do more than invalidating my comments with your claim but demonstrate how and why they are not an "adult discussion" directly connected to the actual why supporters of the AHCA are "angry".Considering that the elimination of subsidies would undeniably result in catastrophic effects on folks enrolled in the ACHA Exchange plans in 36 States.

This incessant quibbling which was prompted by the OP regarding the actual intent of the term "established by the State" versus "established by a State" in no way addresses forthcoming catastrophic consequences. I suppose more energy is to be invested in this quibbling portrayed as an "adult discussion over a law" than which outcomes are to be expected.While the later is to be qualified by you as not being an "adult discussion" because it does not fuel the said quibbling, rather is connected to the existing realities of a catastrophic outcome. And one which would be prompted by the persistent and ongoing determination of the GOP to dig up any rationalization to undermine the AHCA.

I'm not responsible for the law the democrats passed and the legal precedents regarding cases like this.

Your attempts to make this about me personally and/or anything other than the relevant legal issues highlight how weak the legal case is.

- - - Updated - - -

The funny thing is they were promoting and advocating the AHCA back in the early 90s. It only became a country-destroyer when a black, muslim usurper signed it into law.

But we're the ones engaging in "partisan fanboyism."

Further anyone who pronounces such claim ,

Cheering on the rule of law. I tend to place the rule of law even above partisan fanboyism.

better be prepared to show consistency. Especially in a nation where the very body entrusted to interpret the content and intent of the US Constitution is unfortunately affected by their own "partisan fanboyism". Last I checked, there is a definite political affiliation at play among SCOTUS Justices.

If you can find somewhere in my 18000 posts a case where I argued against the rule of law please produce it.

Otherwise shut the fuck up about me and argue the facts of this case.

 

[ksen]

I'm not responsible for the law the democrats passed and the legal precedents regarding cases like this.

good example of "not partisan fanboyism" right there ^^

 

[dismal]

I'm not responsible for the law the democrats passed and the legal precedents regarding cases like this.

good example of "not partisan fanboyism" right there ^^

Saying the Democrats passed this law is a stating a fact. "Zoe noes, dismal is so partisan he stated a fact!!111!1" sounds a bit silly.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you can find somewhere in my 18000 posts a case where I argued against the rule of law please produce it.

Otherwise shut the fuck up about me and argue the facts of this case.

The ACA requires states to create State Run exchanges. The law was passed by Congress, signed into law by the President. I have yet to hear you gnash the teeth about states refusing to obey the rule of law. In fact, you seem to be quite pleased with such defiance of the law.

 

[dismal]

The ACA requires states to create State Run exchanges.

Cite?

 

[ksen]

good example of "not partisan fanboyism" right there ^^

Saying the Democrats passed this law is a stating a fact.

Sure, but feeling the need to point out it was the democrats is partisan.

Nonpartisan would have been to say "Congress passed a law."

See the difference?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The ACA requires states to create State Run exchanges.

Cite?

Each State shall, no later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange

Shall is particularly strong word.

 

[dismal]

Saying the Democrats passed this law is a stating a fact.

Sure, but feeling the need to point out it was the democrats is partisan.

Nonpartisan would have been to say "Congress passed a law."

See the difference?

Not really. My point is that I had nothing to do with the law as it is written. The Democrats wrote it and passed it. Not me.

I also had nothing to do with winning the last Superbowl. The Seahawks did that. Not me.

Trying to make a discussion about the law the Democrats wrote about me is more or less equivalent to trying to make a Superbowl the Seahawks won about me.

 

[ksen]

Sure, but feeling the need to point out it was the democrats is partisan.

Nonpartisan would have been to say "Congress passed a law."

See the difference?

Not really.

I accept your apology.

 

[dismal]

Not really.

I accept your apology.

I think the Chinese have a proverb: "man who believe democrat law writers who intend to make credit available on both state and federal exchange don't just write "credit available on state and federal exchange" or just "credit available on exchange" but decide to write "credit available on state exchange" and capitalize "E" which leads to definition that only applies to state exchange which in combination with word "such" in still other section creates way of saying credits are available on both state and federal exchanges because that is more clear than just saying it directly -- believe anything".

 

[James Madison]

Then there is no point in having written law if the unwritten "intent" of the legislator(s) is to be law.

Every word and all punctuation can be litigated over, fine. Some make more sense than others. This one is a joke.

No, this one is a legitimate dispute quite simply because the Democratic House and Senate did a rather poor job of writing the statute as clearly as is humanly possible.