Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

    Great article emphasizing the fact that there isn't and hasn't been a "free market" in healthcare for A LONG time:

    OUDaily.com | COLUMN: There never really was a &#39;health care debate&#39; to begin with

    "The health care debate was recently reignited by the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Affordable Care Act. Or so it would seem.

    The unfortunate truth is that it did not, in fact, “reignite the health care debate” because there was never really such a thing to begin with. There certainly was an Affordable Care Act debate, but calling it “the health care debate” would be sort of like calling arguments about who was the best character in a Harlequin romance novel a “literary debate.”

    It seems the primary question of an actual “health care debate” would be, “What is the current state of health care in the United States, and why?” Yes, there were some impressively vague bare assertions back and forth on the health care debate, but they were wholly devoid of substance, and the “why?” remained entirely unaddressed.

    Mainline “conservatives” jolting up to defend the American health care system, without qualification, as “the best in the world” hardly constituted thoughtful analysis. Nor did mainline “liberals” giving it the murky evaluation of “bad” without any further details, and proceeding to take on their usual role as the mirror image of conservative reflexes, immediately and uncritically assuming that the problem was a lack of government involvement.

    The real answer to this unheard question doesn’t bode particularly well either for those seeing the Affordable Care Act as the death of a perfectly good health care system nor for those celebrating it as the triumphant inauguration of one. That answer is that the United States' health care system is in shambles, collapsed under the weight of countless government involvements, apparently too uninteresting to discuss.

    An exhaustive list of all culprits would take much longer than a simple column, but we might do well to note the following for now: laws that prohibit cross-state insurance purchases, tax incentives that link insurance to employment (particularly egregious given current unemployment woes), licensure and approval processes of all sorts and the effects of patents.

    In order to be an insurer, one must meet various government standards. In order to be a doctor, one must have a state-issued medical license, and in order to get that, one must attend a medical school that in turn also must be approved. The several layers of licensure radically limit the amount of competition at each level, raising the total price for the patient.

    While a myriad of problems existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries — and referring to that period of robber baron government patronage as “laissez-faire” would be a joke in poor taste — these particular barriers to entry had not yet been fully erected. Without such constraints, the working class did what human beings have always done best: They self-organized from the ground up.


    Fraternal societies, formed for the purpose of mutual aid, pooled their resources in order to make the most of what they had. With doctors begging for patients in a way that we can’t fully comprehend today, this actually ended up being quite a bit.

    Many doctors engaged in what was known as “lodge practice,” the process of contracting collectively to all the members of a particular fraternal society for an annual fee. Given their decentralized and personal nature, such organizations were able to very effectively police their own against abusing the system. Not only that, they were able to do so without the dehumanizing paternalism and lifestyle regulations that accompany modern government programs with the ostensible aim of helping the poor.

    From a contemporary view, the success was staggering. On average, a single day’s wage paid for an entire year of coverage.


    The obvious reply, though, is that modern medicine is a different game entirely with all kinds of equipment and drugs that would make things hard for someone trying to work as a lodge doctor in 2012, even without the licensure factors that killed the historical version of the practice. This criticism is fair as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go too far.

    Like health care costs in general, it’s worthwhile to ask why these specific costs are so prohibitive. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and patents both work hard, hand-in-hand, to keep prices far beyond the reach of reasonability.

    There are two ways of handling the danger of potentially harmful food and drugs. One is to hold peddlers of dangerous food and drugs responsible by heavy torts when the product damages unknowing consumers. This would not only provide real restitution for victims, but it also would force companies to thoroughly test their products themselves before releasing them into the world and risking the costs of heavy lawsuits.

    The other way is to set up a regulatory agency, inevitably held by industry leaders, which makes the costs of doing business for would-be competitors high but low enough for large pharmaceutical companies to go on just fine. This second route is the one we’ve found ourselves taking.

    The price of drugs is not only artificially high due to the FDA but also because of government-enforced monopolies over each drug in the form of patents. The moral issues surrounding how odd the idea of holding property in something as inherently non-scarce and intangible as an idea are certainly worth discussing. But for our present purposes, it’s just the economic effect on the health care industry I want to focus on.

    Drug patents are particularly insidious, able — through eliminating competition — to increase the costs of medicine by up to 2,000 percent per pill. However, the attack on patients by patents doesn’t end with government-issued rights of monopoly on life-saving medication. Medical equipment itself, too, becomes more expensive due to patents, which means the costs of doing business for doctors must raise to pay for the artificially costly equipment, in turn leaving you scraping to pay for artificially costly visits to those doctors.

    The idea of any of these factors being discussed on the major programs of either Fox News or MSNBC is unfortunately laughable. Those loudest voices on the Right, insisting they believe in free markets, have done nothing to expose the ways existing market distortions have shaped a predictably catastrophic healthcare system. Those loudest voices on the Left, insisting they care for the poor, have done nothing to expose how the poor are being robbed of affordable coverage by laws that work to create and maintain an impenetrable system of privilege for powerful drug companies.

    Not only have they failed to fully address the implications of their stated values, they have gone against them. Republicans have insisted a health care system that exists as one of the decidedly least free market sectors of the economy is essentially perfect. Democrats have triumphed a bill, forcing people to give money to big drug companies. None of this is discussed, and no real “health care debate” ever actually occurs.

    Furthermore, the general form of the fictitious “health care debate” is replicated in the “poverty debate,” the “education debate,” the “unemployment debate” and virtually every other imagined public controversy. Much time is spent going back and forth over whether there’s a problem, no matter how obvious that problem is. Then, varyingly arbitrary, but all very visible, government solutions are raised.

    Meanwhile, the much less-visible previous government actions that created the malevolent soil in which the problem grew are met with total silence. All the while, each program — in its own way — contributes to an interlocking system of dominance for the already wealthy, who might fall from their perilously high social position at any moment if not for the steady hand of government.

    Yes, “Obamacare” was debated. But the fundamentally cancerous relationship of the system President Barack Obama is a part of — government to the U.S. health care system — has not had been met with the sort of debate that we’d like to imagine."

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

      THIS is why we can't have nice legislation: Too many chiefs all trying to put their legacy brand on anything that tries to get through our legislature.

      This just in: DC Appeals court decides Obamacare doesn't get to provide subsidies in states that have not created insurance exchanges... or something like that. This is the latest of what was promised to be a long string of lawsuits about this very poorly planned (and even more poorly executed) new law:

      As the Washington Times reported, “Americans are not entitled to Obamacare’s government subsidies if they live in a state that relied on the federal government to set up its insurance marketplace under the law, according to a federal appeals court ruling Tuesday.”
      In other words, in states where the state didn’t build an exchange, and the Obamacare federal exchanges are needed, Obamacare was just ruled ineligible for federal subsidies… meaning Obamacare is unworkable.
      In the simplest of terms, Obamacare’s subsidies weren’t really written for states that didn’t build their own exchange. I guess maybe they should have read it before they passed it.
      Above quote, and the rest of the story, is on Conservative Tribune.

      Although it hasn't reached SCOTUS yet ... you can be darn-sure-you-betcha it will.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

        It took me awhile to read about this today, but it appears we have a conflict of decisions here between the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and another three-judge 4th Circuit Panel in Virginia.

        Best I can tell, and this will become a real mess, 2 of the 3 in D.C. Court made a ruling on a section of the ACA that applies to an ambiguous restriction on who can obtain health insurance subsides. Basically the ACA says that people who obtain coverage through "State" run exchanges can then try to qualify for federal level subsidies (like tax credits, etc.) The problem is in all those pages of ACA provisions there is not equal language that suggest "Federal" run exchanges get the same subsides.

        Now the 4th Circuit in Virginia went 3-0 the opposite direction saying Federal run exchanges still qualify for those same subsidies suggesting the same thing the 1 dissenting judge from the D.C. Court suggested, that this was just a political attempt to undermine ACA. Predictably these rulings are pretty much down party lines of whom appointed them in some cases several administrations ago.

        The legal challenge, especially with today's court contradiction, will end up in front of a larger panel Circuit Court and even eventually the Supreme Court itself. What is at stake here is all of 14 States went with exchanges they ran, the others are all Federal so you can see what could happen to ACA in those 36 States assuming this gets that far. I suspect the political pressure here will make this go ACA's way at some point once appeals are exhausted. We are talking about Billions that Obama wants to hand out over the next decade here and this is a sizable percentage loss for that effort if it by some miracle the final decision goes against ACA.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

          See? Tol'ja:



          ‘This ruling does not have any practical impact on their ability to receive tax credits right now. Right now there are millions of Americans all across the country who are receiving tax credits from the federal government as a result of the Affordable Care Act. While this ruling is interesting to legal theorists, it has no practical impact on their tax credits right now.”
          The second is… there are four different cases making this point that are making their way through the federal courts system. Two of them have been dismissed at the district court level, two of them are awaiting their initial rulings. This, of course, is the appeal of one of those cases, so, there is decidedly mixed legal opinion about this. But for those who are keeping score, we’re still ahead two-to-one here.
          .
          What I do anticipate the Department of Justice will do is they will ask for a ruling from the full D.C. circuit. As you know, this was a decision that was issued just by three members of the D.C. circuit, two of whom ruled against the federal government, and one of them agreed with the government’s position.

          and
          Now, it’s important for people to also understand, that some of those district courts that have thrown out this case have been decided by judges who used some pretty strong rhetoric in doing so. There was a judge in this case at the district level who said ‘there is simply no evidence in the statute itself or in the legislative history of any intent by Congress to support the claims that are made by the plaintiff.’ In another case that was making the same legal argument, a judge wrote that the theory propounded by the plaintiffs was ‘not a viable theory.’


          and, finally:
          The last thing that’s important… there’s a lot of high-minded case law that’s applied here, but there’s also an element of common sense that should be applied as well. Which is that, you don’t need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to tax credits that would lower there healthcare costs, regardless of whether it was state officials or federal officials who are running the marketplace. I think that’s a pretty clear intent of the Congressional law.


          So it doesn't matter what the courts decide, this administration will find a way to ignore it... ONLY possible salvation will be that SCOTUS might fast-track it given all four cases aim at the same thing.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

            Originally posted by Good1 View Post
            So it doesn't matter what the courts decide, this administration will find a way to ignore it... ONLY possible salvation will be that SCOTUS might fast-track it given all four cases aim at the same thing.[/COLOR]
            [/INDENT]
            ???

            I'm not sure what there is to be upset about at this point. Nothing he said (in the quotes you posted anyway) is incorrect. These rulings really doesn't (and shouldn't) have any practical impact on the subsidies until the appeal process is complete. The administration isn't "ignoring" the courts, they've acknowledged the ruling and are waiting for the process to be completed. The court didn't order (or suggest) that the subsidies should be immediately changed because of this ruling by itself.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

              Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
              ???

              I'm not sure what there is to be upset about at this point. Nothing he said (in the quotes you posted anyway) is incorrect. These rulings really doesn't (and shouldn't) have any practical impact on the subsidies until the appeal process is complete. The administration isn't "ignoring" the courts, they've acknowledged the ruling and are waiting for the process to be completed. The court didn't order (or suggest) that the subsidies should be immediately changed because of this ruling by itself.
              Anyone else and I would agree with you. But this administration has a track record of ignoring and/or circumventing the other two branches of government. I think this is just another episode of the same-old/same-old Obama rationalizing his behavior (even if only in advance at this point).

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                Anyone else and I would agree with you. But this administration has a track record of ignoring and/or circumventing the other two branches of government. I think this is just another episode of the same-old/same-old Obama rationalizing his behavior (even if only in advance at this point).
                Its not ignoring the courts until it either stops being appealed because one party drops it (not going to happen) or scotus rules on it or passes on it letting a ruling stand. At that point, if the DC circuit ruling is held to be the correct one, THEN he's ignoring the courts. You can't ignore something that hasn't happened yet.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                  Originally posted by reality View Post
                  Its not ignoring the courts until it either stops being appealed because one party drops it (not going to happen) or scotus rules on it or passes on it letting a ruling stand. At that point, if the DC circuit ruling is held to be the correct one, THEN he's ignoring the courts. You can't ignore something that hasn't happened yet.
                  Other decisions, the ones that went his way, were enacted as if they were final (witness the Proposition 8 challenge in California: (9th district over-ruled the will of the people and it had the same impact as if SCOTUS had ruled against it).

                  Like I said, if this was anyone else, I would agree with you (and Dilletante). But this is a president who shows no reluctance or hesitation to ignore or circumvent the other two branches of government.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                    Other decisions, the ones that went his way, were enacted as if they were final (witness the Proposition 8 challenge in California: (9th district over-ruled the will of the people and it had the same impact as if SCOTUS had ruled against it).

                    Like I said, if this was anyone else, I would agree with you (and Dilletante). But this is a president who shows no reluctance or hesitation to ignore or circumvent the other two branches of government.
                    Odd. That's not actually what happened with prop 8 at all. A district court found it violated due process and equal protection, it went all the way to scotus and scotus said "the people bringing this appeal don't have standing and the district court was right anyway".
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_8_(2008)
                    " Although upheld in State court, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.[18] Walker issued a stay (injunction) against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[19][20] The State of California did not appeal the ruling (with which it had agreed anyway) leaving the initiative proponents and one county to seek an appeal."
                    "
                    On appeal, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the county had no right of appeal, and asked the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal (known as "standing") if the State did not do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012,[21] but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court,[22] which heard oral arguments in the appeal Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26, 2013.[23] On June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the Ninth Circuit had erred in allowing the previous appeal, since in line with Article III of the Constitution and many prior cases unanimous on the point, being an initiative proponents is not enough by itself to have federal court standing or appeal a ruling in federal court. This left the original federal district court ruling against Proposition 8 as the final outcome, and same sex marriages resumed almost immediately afterwards."

                    It was found unconstitutional and an INJUNCTION against enforcement was issued. The state also didn't appeal the ruling (smart move to save money for said cash strapped state, remember when they had to hand out IOU's, especially since prop 8 lost at 9th and scotus).
                    See how that's different from this case? No injunction so far in this case (a motion could be made though it would probably be denied) and an appeal by a party with established standing is pending.

                    I'm not saying obama might not thumb his nose at the court when a final decision is eventually made or an injunction ordered (if there is one ordered). But that in no way shape or form is what has happened in this situation because a final decision HASN"T been made nor has an injunction been ordered.
                    To thumb his nose at the court, the court must first make a final decision or order an injunction. They have to give a command for him to ignore a command.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                      Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                      Anyone else and I would agree with you. But this administration has a track record of ignoring and/or circumventing the other two branches of government. I think this is just another episode of the same-old/same-old Obama rationalizing his behavior (even if only in advance at this point).
                      Originally posted by reality View Post
                      Odd. That's not actually what happened with prop 8 at all. A district court found it violated due process and equal protection, it went all the way to scotus and scotus said "the people bringing this appeal don't have standing and the district court was right anyway".
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_8_(2008)
                      " Although upheld in State court, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.[18] Walker issued a stay (injunction) against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[19][20] The State of California did not appeal the ruling (with which it had agreed anyway) leaving the initiative proponents and one county to seek an appeal."
                      "
                      On appeal, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the county had no right of appeal, and asked the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal (known as "standing") if the State did not do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012,[21] but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court,[22] which heard oral arguments in the appeal Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26, 2013.[23] On June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the Ninth Circuit had erred in allowing the previous appeal, since in line with Article III of the Constitution and many prior cases unanimous on the point, being an initiative proponents is not enough by itself to have federal court standing or appeal a ruling in federal court. This left the original federal district court ruling against Proposition 8 as the final outcome, and same sex marriages resumed almost immediately afterwards."

                      It was found unconstitutional and an INJUNCTION against enforcement was issued. The state also didn't appeal the ruling (smart move to save money for said cash strapped state, remember when they had to hand out IOU's, especially since prop 8 lost at 9th and scotus).
                      See how that's different from this case? No injunction so far in this case (a motion could be made though it would probably be denied) and an appeal by a party with established standing is pending.

                      I'm not saying obama might not thumb his nose at the court when a final decision is eventually made or an injunction ordered (if there is one ordered). But that in no way shape or form is what has happened in this situation because a final decision HASN"T been made nor has an injunction been ordered.
                      To thumb his nose at the court, the court must first make a final decision or order an injunction. They have to give a command for him to ignore a command.
                      Ditto to reality.

                      Talk radio today and yesterday is packed with hosts denouncing the administration for "ignoring the courts" or "defying the rule of law" or some such. I realize that they're trying to play to a certain segment of the conservative base, but it seems to me that their in danger of alienating moderates (or anyone who actually bothers to look into this issue, for that matter).

                      This plays directly into the hands of democrats who like to claim that the Right is just going to attack the administration no matter what. There's nothing wrong with the administration's response to this ruling, and yet the conservative taking heads are citing this as evidence that Obama doesn't care about the courts. That's just going to encourage people to ignore conservative claims even when (as is sometimes the case) the administration does overstep its bounds.

                      I.E. A lot of conservatives are "crying wolf" over this; and that's not a good strategy in the long run.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        Odd. That's not actually what happened with prop 8 at all. A district court found it violated due process and equal protection, it went all the way to scotus and scotus said "the people bringing this appeal don't have standing and the district court was right anyway".
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califor...ition_8_(2008)
                        " Although upheld in State court, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by the federal courts. In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, United States District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8 on August 4, 2010 ruling that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.[18] Walker issued a stay (injunction) against enforcing Proposition 8 and a stay to determine suspension of his ruling pending appeal.[19][20] The State of California did not appeal the ruling (with which it had agreed anyway) leaving the initiative proponents and one county to seek an appeal."
                        "
                        On appeal, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled the county had no right of appeal, and asked the California Supreme Court to rule whether the proponents of Prop 8 had the right to appeal (known as "standing") if the State did not do so. The California Supreme Court ruled that they did. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision on February 7, 2012,[21] but the stay remained in place as appeals continued to the U.S. Supreme Court,[22] which heard oral arguments in the appeal Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26, 2013.[23] On June 26, 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that the Ninth Circuit had erred in allowing the previous appeal, since in line with Article III of the Constitution and many prior cases unanimous on the point, being an initiative proponents is not enough by itself to have federal court standing or appeal a ruling in federal court. This left the original federal district court ruling against Proposition 8 as the final outcome, and same sex marriages resumed almost immediately afterwards."

                        It was found unconstitutional and an INJUNCTION against enforcement was issued. The state also didn't appeal the ruling (smart move to save money for said cash strapped state, remember when they had to hand out IOU's, especially since prop 8 lost at 9th and scotus).
                        See how that's different from this case? No injunction so far in this case (a motion could be made though it would probably be denied) and an appeal by a party with established standing is pending.

                        I'm not saying obama might not thumb his nose at the court when a final decision is eventually made or an injunction ordered (if there is one ordered). But that in no way shape or form is what has happened in this situation because a final decision HASN"T been made nor has an injunction been ordered.
                        To thumb his nose at the court, the court must first make a final decision or order an injunction. They have to give a command for him to ignore a command.
                        So ... it took all of those words to tell me that is EXACTLY what happened?

                        District court ruled on it ... and all use of it was abandoned, even before SCOTUS ruled.

                        Not sure why it is so hard for you to see Obama's history of ignoring and/or circumventing the other two branches of government ... which was (and is) the point around which you are straining at that gnat with your superior knowledge of jurisprudence.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                          Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                          Ditto to reality.

                          Talk radio today and yesterday is packed with hosts denouncing the administration for "ignoring the courts" or "defying the rule of law" or some such. I realize that they're trying to play to a certain segment of the conservative base, but it seems to me that their in danger of alienating moderates (or anyone who actually bothers to look into this issue, for that matter).

                          This plays directly into the hands of democrats who like to claim that the Right is just going to attack the administration no matter what. There's nothing wrong with the administration's response to this ruling, and yet the conservative taking heads are citing this as evidence that Obama doesn't care about the courts. That's just going to encourage people to ignore conservative claims even when (as is sometimes the case) the administration does overstep its bounds.

                          I.E. A lot of conservatives are "crying wolf" over this; and that's not a good strategy in the long run.
                          ...and I assume those denunciations are shading your understanding of what I'm saying...

                          But my POINT is (and was), Obama and his minions have a rich history of ignoring and/or circumventing the other two branches of government. Do you really not have anything to respond to that?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                            Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                            But my POINT is (and was), Obama and his minions have a rich history of ignoring and/or circumventing the other two branches of government. Do you really not have anything to respond to that?
                            I'm not disagreeing with you on that point.

                            But just because the administration has behaved poorly in that regard in the past doesn't mean that they're (yet) doing so in this case, and saying that they are is inaccurate and gives the administration ammunition for calling past (perhaps more accurate) accusations into question. I.E. I'm not saying there have never been wolves, but there isn't one in this case (at least not yet) so claiming that there is just makes the Right look insincere.

                            On the tangentially related issue of Prop 8, the difference (as reality said) is that the district court there issued an injunction whereas the DC court did not. Those decisions were entirely in the hands of the judges and had nothing to do with the Obama administration.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                              Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                              I'm not disagreeing with you on that point.
                              Thank you.

                              that is what I'm saying... the Admin has "misbehaved" in the past and that leads me to believe they are misbehaving now. EVEN THOUGH this set-up is prior to SCOTUS hearing the case, I am saying they will find a way around a SCOTUS decision (if it goes against them) and all this smoke and mirrors is just setting that up.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                                So ... it took all of those words to tell me that is EXACTLY what happened?

                                District court ruled on it ... and all use of it was abandoned, even before SCOTUS ruled.

                                Not sure why it is so hard for you to see Obama's history of ignoring and/or circumventing the other two branches of government ... which was (and is) the point around which you are straining at that gnat with your superior knowledge of jurisprudence.
                                As shown what you stated is not what happened. To say nothing of the fact that simply because it comes into a state constitution does not mean it passes muster under the ultimate law of the land, the constitution. For instance: Prop 8 violated due process and equal protection.
                                This was ruled upon by the court (district), coming from two people who were directly hindered by the law and thus had standing to challenge it, the state declined to pursue because it found the court's reasoning to be sound but and I QUOTE DIRECTLY: "The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative." a stay that was only removed in 2013, 3 years later after hitting scotus. So NO what you claimed is NOT what happened, legally speaking. How else might I illustrate that for you?

                                Because the state, the party with standing, AGREED with the district court's reasoning, that's why it wasn't pursued. They saw that it was a non winner and they DECLINED TO WASTE MONEY PURSUING A LOSING BET. Holy shit they FINALLY show SOME FORM of fiscal responsibility and you won't give them credit for it!


                                As to your last paragraph: This is EXACTLY what I said, quoted again for your ease of access with bolding added for emphasis "I'm not saying obama might not thumb his nose at the court when a final decision is eventually made or an injunction ordered (if there is one ordered). But that in no way shape or form is what has happened in this situation because a final decision HASN"T been made nor has an injunction been ordered.
                                To thumb his nose at the court, the court must first make a final decision or order an injunction. They have to give a command for him to ignore a command"

                                See how I'm agreeing with you that he HAS done such in the past and that he MIGHT do so again? See the rest of the part where I point out he's not able to thumb his nose at a court injunction because no such injunction exists in this case and no ruling has been made that is not in appeal already?
                                Its not POSSIBLE at THIS MOMENT IN TIME for zero to thumb his nose at the courts: They haven't finished ruling yet, nor issued an injunction.
                                He MIGHT thumb his nose IF they issue an injunction or finalize the decision against (IE in a year or so after scotus gets around to it)
                                But that time is not NOW.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X