End Times and Current Events
December 08, 2022, 09:43:55 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

The true cost of Obamacare

August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Down
Author Topic: The true cost of Obamacare  (Read 22616 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357

View Profile
« Reply #330 on: March 09, 2015, 11:09:31 am »

Here's What Scalia Said About Obamacare Last Week. It's Not What He Said 3 Years Ago.

It's going to be at least a few weeks, and probably a few months, before we know what the Supreme Court is going to do with Obamacare. But Wednesday's oral arguments in King v. Burwell have already made something very clear: Justice Antonin Scalia isn't too worried about intellectual consistency.

Among the many issues that came up Wednesday were the likely consequences if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, thereby prohibiting the federal government from distributing Obamacare's tax credits in two-thirds of the states. Millions of people depend on those tax credits to purchase health insurance; without the financial assistance, they'd have to give it up. And that's not all. Experts have warned that the loss of so many paying customers would disrupt whole state insurance markets, in ways that would affect even people buying insurance without federal assistance.

Congress, in theory, could avoid these problems by passing a simple, one-sentence amendment to the Affordable Care Act. The entire basis for the lawsuit is the meaning of a four-word phrase, "established by the state." And during oral arguments, Scalia suggested Congress would do just that, or at least something like it:

What about -- what about Congress? You really think Congress is just going to sit there while -- while all of the disastrous consequences ensue? I mean, how often have we come out with a decision such as the -- you know, the bankruptcy court decision? Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that -- that takes care of the problem. It happens all the time. Why is that not going to happen here?

Of course, Congress can't pass anything more than emergency stop-gap measures these days, as the recent showdown over Department of Homeland Security funding demonstrated. And while Republicans in the House have voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times, they've yet to get a replacement bill onto the floor, let alone vote for one -- even though they've promised to produce such legislation repeatedly.

Everybody knows this. The courtroom burst into laughter when Solicitor General Donald Verrilli responded to Scalia by asking, incredulously, "This Congress, your honor?"

Is it too -- or, at least, he did three years ago, when the court heard arguments in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

That was the case challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate. One issue the justices considered in that dispute was whether, in principle, they could invalidate the mandate but leave the rest of the law in place. Scalia suggested that such a move wouldn't make sense, because it would undermine the law's function and Congress, beset by paralysis, would be unable to act in response.

Here's what he said back then, addressing an attorney who was proposing that only the mandate be struck down:

Let's consider how -- how your approach, severing as little as possible, thereby increases the deference that we're showing to Congress. It seems to me it puts Congress in this position: This Act is still in full effect. There is going to be this deficit that used to be made up by the mandatory coverage provision. All that money has to come from somewhere. You can't repeal the rest of the Act because you're not going to get 60 votes in the Senate to repeal the rest. It's not a matter of enacting a new Act. You got to get 60 votes to repeal it. So, the rest of the Act is going to be the law.
The circumstances are not identical and oral arguments can be famously misleading indicators of how justices will actually vote. But you have to engage in some fine hair-splitting to show how Scalia might logically expect Congress to act now but doubt its ability to act three years ago. And while many principals in this saga have engaged in "motivated reasoning" -- that is, starting with a preferred political outcome, then crafting logic to fit it -- Scalia is becoming famous for it.

Back in the individual mandate case, one of the strongest legal defenses for the law was based on an opinion Scalia himself had written, in a case called Gonzales v. Raich. Scalia barely noticed and joined an opinion declaring the mandate unconstitutional. In this latest case against Obamacare, the government can once again point to a Scalia opinion to justify its position: A majority decision, which he wrote just five months ago, arguing that judges must interpret specific words in a statute "in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Yet there was Scalia on Wednesday, attacking the government and showing little to no interest in the context around "established by the State."

To be clear, the Supreme Court doesn't have to consider consequences of a decision when making its decision. But it's likely that Chief Justice John Roberts and maybe even Justice Anthony Kennedy would hesitate to issue a ruling that would have a devastating effect on millions of people.

That may be why Justice Samuel Alito, during oral arguments, floated the idea of a "stay" that would delay a ruling's impact and give Congress time to act. Alito may be trying to ease any anxiety Roberts and Kennedy might have. Scalia's professions of newfound faith in Congress could be an attempt to accomplish the same thing, even though he knows, as well as anybody, the most likely outcome of a decision is more congressional inaction.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy