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 shouldnt 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

    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
    There are those, however, who do not see this as the original intent: That the original intent was to establish state exchanges and, with the legislation written the way it was, exclusing "Federal Exchange" participants from subsidies was purposeful.
    I'm sure evidence will be brought on both sides if it comes to that. However, for the interpretation assumed by the challenge to stand, one would have to assume that those who passed the law (1) intended to include a clause that would make the entire thing unworkable and (2) that they then immediately ignored their own intentions when it came to implementing the law. Indeed, I think the best evidence that the law was intended to provide subsidies for Federally run exchanges is that that's what it's been doing from the start and only opponents of the law have complained. If the legislators who supported passed the law hadn't intended that to happen, one presumes they would be the one's bringing it up.

    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
    As to Roberts, I gather he is jealously protective of the Supreme Court's reputation (for lack of a better word). My guess is, he voted with the liberal side on that previous case to shelter the court from criticism that it is just a partisan shill cover for this side or that. By supporting that the "fines" were, in fact, "taxes," he stopped that potential criticism in its tracks. I (hope I) am not seeing that decision as predictive of future decisions.
    I agree. That's actually why I would expect to see several conservative justices side with the ACA in this case. They may see the law as unconstitutional, but having been overruled on that larger question already, I'd expect that they'd accept the previous decision of the court and agree that on this particular issue, those supporting the ACA are right about what was originally intended.

    ?


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

      Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
      I'm sure evidence will be brought on both sides if it comes to that. However, for the interpretation assumed by the challenge to stand, one would have to assume that those who passed the law (1) intended to include a clause that would make the entire thing unworkable and (2) that they then immediately ignored their own intentions when it came to implementing the law. Indeed, I think the best evidence that the law was intended to provide subsidies for Federally run exchanges is that that's what it's been doing from the start and only opponents of the law have complained. If the legislators who supported passed the law hadn't intended that to happen, one presumes they would be the one's bringing it up.
      Do you think the president's behavior will factor into "what they intended?"

      "They" pushed through half-baked legislation and apparently did not even take the time to ensure it was properly written. It has been the Executive Branch who has been pursuing the unspecified practice and, I'm not so sure they counted on 36 states resisting ACA as they considered what they intended. If they did expect the states to resist in large numbers, then yes, I can see where they would have intended the federal exchanges to be subsidy-allowed. But if in their arrogance, they did not expect the states to buck, It seems to me a reasonable argument would be "what they intended is what they wrote."

      ?


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

        Originally posted by jet57 View Post
        And you complain about my typing.

        The ACA is doing what it was supposed to do. Some unions are pissd about it becasue it gives the companies and out to screw them on their health care.
        ObamaCare doing exactly what it's supposed to do?

        But the overriding issue here is not the minutiae of Obamacare it's the use of taxpayer money. Obamacare is a pure income redistribution play. That means President Obama and the Democratic Party want to put as much money into the hands of poor and less affluent Americans as they can and health care subsidies are a great way to do that. And of course the funds for those subsidies are taken from businesses and affluent Americans who have the cash.

        Income redistribution is a hallmark of socialism and we in America are now moving in that direction. That has angered the Republican Party and many conservative Americans who do not believe our capitalistic system was set up to provide cradle to grave entitlements. But Republicans have not been able to convince the majority of Americans that income redistribution is harmful. Mitt Romney was not able to make the case that America will suffer economically if the entitlement culture expands.

        And the case is simple. Businesses contract so there are fewer jobs and the massive federal debt rises - diminishing the value of the dollar. That is what an entitlement culture and income redistribution bring.
        Obamacare and Socialism

        So what if I don't like what appears to be doing?

        ?


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

          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          ObamaCare doing exactly what it's supposed to do?

          Obamacare and Socialism

          So what if I don't like what appears to be doing?
          I agree with that article's assessment, except that they don't mention the money is SUPPOSED to improve the station of the less fortunate. Since O-Care has raised (doubled? Tripled?) the premiums for the healthcare and, in some cases, those less-fortunate now have a premium payment where none previously existed ... that extra money they get in a subsidy is more or less a wash, economically for them.

          So, IMO, you are right about this being a slight-of-hand wealth redistribution plan, but it kind of sucks to be on the receiving end (and, well, the giving end as well I guess) because it's not moving the needle (unless it is moving it down in some cases).

          ?


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

            Here's one page-count for the ACA
            Stewart countered that it would be fairer to count only the regs issued 1,148 days after the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 was enacted, since it’s exactly that long since the Affordable Care Act became law. By his count, that yields about 5,000 pages of regulations, or roughly one-quarter of the number for Obamacare.
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...942e_blog.html

            The GOP used only 5,000 pages, compared with the ACA, 4 times larger at about 20k pages. Of course, a few hundred pages could have included everyone in Medicare, including an independent audit done on a regular basis to keep waste to a minimum. Neither party chose that option. The Dem option (ACA) didn't get the GOP their money contributions, and the GOP voucher option didn't get the Dems their votes. Oh, BTW, neither option was the best for the taxpaying users of medical care (aka, everybody), but it seems that is beside the point.

            Anyway, the SCOTUS will decide whether this was typo or not. Even for a 5k page document, a typo causing a legal argument seems possible. So, this will not be the first time it requires a court decision to sort out typos. One could have hired a couple dozen legal secretaries to edit the mess, and saved gov't. revenue for yet another case. That's probably beside the point for the DC crowd, too.

            ?


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

              Originally posted by jet57 View Post
              And you complain about my typing.

              The ACA is doing what it was supposed to do. Some unions are pissd about it becasue it gives the companies and out to screw them on their health care.
              There was nothing wrong with my statement, grammatically or spelling wise. Your response, however had three typos. pissd, becasue, and the use of and instead of an.

              ?


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

                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                Here's one page-count for the ACA
                http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...942e_blog.html

                The GOP used only 5,000 pages, compared with the ACA, 4 times larger at about 20k pages. Of course, a few hundred pages could have included everyone in Medicare, including an independent audit done on a regular basis to keep waste to a minimum. Neither party chose that option. The Dem option (ACA) didn't get the GOP their money contributions, and the GOP voucher option didn't get the Dems their votes. Oh, BTW, neither option was the best for the taxpaying users of medical care (aka, everybody), but it seems that is beside the point.

                Anyway, the SCOTUS will decide whether this was typo or not. Even for a 5k page document, a typo causing a legal argument seems possible. So, this will not be the first time it requires a court decision to sort out typos. One could have hired a couple dozen legal secretaries to edit the mess, and saved gov't. revenue for yet another case. That's probably beside the point for the DC crowd, too.
                Only, as I said above, it was not a typo. It was an intentional effort to force states to establish exchanges.

                ?


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

                  Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                  Only, as I said above, it was not a typo. It was an intentional effort to force states to establish exchanges.
                  Must not have been very successful (like probably everything else in ObamaCare) because so many states decided to not establish an exchange.

                  ?


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

                    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                    Must not have been very successful (like probably everything else in ObamaCare) because so many states decided to not establish an exchange.
                    And that's the rub. Subsidies were supposed to go to people in states that established exchanges and not go to states that didn't. The same with medicaid payments. They went to states that expanded their medicaid programs. Those that didn't want to incur the added future costs of these expanded programs could not be forced to do so.

                    ?


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

                      The law was written to limit subsidies to states which set up exchanges.

                      A video of the presentation, posted on YouTube, was unearthed tonight by Ryan Radia at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank which has participated in the legal challenge to the IRS rule allowing subsidies in federal exchanges. Heres what Gruber says.

                      Whats important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you dont set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax creditsbut your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So youre essentially saying [to] your citizens youre going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this...

                      And what he says is exactly what challengers to the administrations implementation of the law have been arguingthat if a state chooses not to establish its own exchange, then residents of those states will not be able to access Obamacare's health insurance tax credits. He says this in response to a question asking whether the federal government will step in if a state chooses not to build its own exchange. Gruber describes the possibility that states wont enact their own exchanges as one of the potential "threats" to the law. He says this with confidence and certainty, and at no other point in the presentation does he contradict the statement in question. [emphasis added]


                      http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/24/wa...jonathan-grube

                      ?


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

                        While Ensign’s medical malpractice amendment didn’t make it into the law, Baucus’s comments provide even more evidence that years ago, Obamacare’s authors believed that providing premium subsidies only to state exchanges would be the incentive they needed to get red states to create their own health care exchanges.

                        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/25/ob...#ixzz38XZu6233

                        ?


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

                          More evidence that it was intended for subsidies to only go to people in state run exchanges:

                          Maybe Democrats Should Have Read Obamacare Before They Passed It

                          http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevingl...-bill-n1865814

                          Where are all you folks now who say it was just a typo? It was just another case of the feds trying to force the states to do something that, in this case, backfired on them.

                          ?


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

                            ?


                            • This is regarding the newer King vs Burwell challenge. The ACA was just saved yet again by the SCOTUS 6-3.

                              Republican strategists everywhere are literally breathing a sigh of relief and no that's not a joke. Had the GOP been successful in kicking tens of millions of people in red states off insurance, there would have been hell to pay. It would have become a major disaster the likes of which have not been seen before since no "fix" could have ever pass congress. Now they can simply go back to running against the law with no alternatives like they have been. The GOP just dodged a huge bullet.

                              ?


                              • I'm rather disappointed in SCOTUS, though I'm not shocked after the "penalty = tax " horseshit.

                                You have the guy who penned the act, Gruber, openly admitting the subsidies were a carrot to get states to make their own exchanges but words don't mean what they mean anymore.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X