Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree13Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 22nd, 2014, 10:46 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,828
The two who voted on this were republican appointed. And we KNOW how the Senate has blocked the President's ability to appoint ANYONE to ANYTHING

Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Obamacare

Quote:

A federal appeals court dealt a huge blow to Obamacare on Tuesday, banning
the federal exchange from providing subsidies to residents of the 36 states it serves.

A divided three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the text of the Affordable Care Act restricts the provision of premium tax credits to state-run exchanges. The two Republican appointees on the panel ruled against Obamacare while the one Democratic appointee ruled for the law.

"We conclude that appellants have the better of the argument: a federal Exchange is not an 'Exchange established by the State,' and section 36B does not authorize the IRS to provide tax credits for insurance purchased on federal Exchanges," Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote for the court in Halbig v. Burwell.

His ruling was joined in a concurring opinion by George H. W. Bush-appointed Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who said it would be a "distortion" to let the federal exchange provide subsidies. "Only further legislation could accomplish the expansion the government seeks," he wrote.
NOT allowing subsidies to be provided is akin to denying health care to the poor. My stars, how the "pro-life" movement has turned into the new Hitler era.
LongWinded is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 10:46 AM   #22
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581



excalibur is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 10:57 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
skews13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: nirvana
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
Halbig v. Burwell cover two-thirds of the nation.

The Fourth Circuit comes out looking very stupid looking in King v. Burwell wherein they say this:





When a court makes the admissions the Fourth Circuit made regarding this particular part of the ACA, then nonetheless hands it off to the agency's discretion, you have a cowardly ruling. By the by, premiums are rising faster now than in the previous decade.

And the full appeals court will uphold that decision. The 3 judge DC panel made what is undoubtedly a political decision, by assuming the Democrats would write a poison pill into their own bill. No court of appeals has ever ruled along those lines, so we'll see who comes off looking stupid. In either case it will do nothing to repeal the law, and only put Republicans in an untenable situation going forward, in both state and national elections.
skews13 is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 10:59 AM   #24
Banned
 
Medicine Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northeast
Posts: 9,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post


Medicine Man is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 11:00 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
LongWinded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 11,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post



What? Finding out that the two judges who voted against the ACA were republican appointees makes me false in calling out racists, how? How are businesses not greedy? What is false about saying that making the ACA fail is a racist ploy on the part of the republicans?

Boehner, Ryan vow GOP House will press ahead with ObamaCare repeal effort | Fox News

Quote:
GOP House leaders said Sunday they will forge ahead with efforts to repeal President Obama’s health care law, drawing criticism from Democratic lawmakers who said Americans want them to instead go forward with efforts to improve the economy.

“We’re going to do it one more time,” House Speaker John Boehner said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

The GOP-led House has attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act numerous times and is scheduled to take up the issue again July 11, less than two weeks after the Supreme Court ruled the law was constitutional.

Boehner, R-Ohio, said House Republicans will take a “practical, step-by-step” approach, compared to the 2,700-page reform bill that has been called a complete government takeover of the insurance industry.
Lies. The government isn't IN the health care business. The government opened up affordable health insurance for ALL citizens, NOT just Congress and the rich.

Here's some reasons why republicans want to repeal the ACA

EconomistMom.com » Blog Archive » Why Republicans Really Want to Repeal Health Reform

Quote:

So, House Republicans have titled H.R. 2, their bill to repeal the health reform law passed last March, “The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act.” Except the health care reform bill wouldn’t likely kill jobs, according to this analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Meanwhile, CBO has explained that just as they had scored the health reform law as reducing–not increasing–the deficit (which by the way would mean that it would eventually raise national saving, grow the economy, and create jobs), repealing the (nevertheless so-called “job-killing”) health reform law would actually increase the deficit.

So what are the real reasons why Republicans want to repeal health reform? I have my guesses:

They think most Americans dislike health reform. This is the companion to why policymakers were so quick to extend and deficit-finance the Bush tax cuts–not because there was any evidence that the Bush tax cuts were wonderful for the economy (oh, to the contrary), but because they believed that Americans (or more specifically those Americans who vote) loved the Bush tax cuts for whatever inexplicable reasons.
They don’t want to expand publicly-funded health care. The health care reform act did in fact do more to expand health coverage than to directly reduce the costs of existing programs. It does mean “bigger government”–or as CBO puts it, expands the “federal budgetary commitment to health care.” But it did more than pay for that expanded coverage by the spending cuts and tax increases in the same law, which is why CBO scored it as reducing, not increasing, the deficit. Which leads to…
They didn’t actually want the kind of health reform that would reduce the deficit–not this way at least. As CBO’s latest analysis of this repeal bill explains (emphasis added):

PPACA and the Reconciliation Act also included a number of provisions to reduce federal outlays (primarily for Medicare) and to increase federal revenues (mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance payroll tax and imposing fees on certain manufacturers and insurers); in March, CBO and JCT estimated that those provisions unrelated to insurance coverage would, on balance, reduce direct spending by about $500 billion and increase revenues by about $410 billion over the2012–2019 period.

What Republicans really oppose about the health reform law is the tax increases that do most of the deficit reduction in the law. These aren’t just random tax increases, though. These are the kind of tax increases (or reductions in health insurance tax expenditures) necessary to bring out-of-pocket health costs more in line with true economic costs, to reduce the excess demand for health care that drives up the market price of health care. It’s not that Republicans oppose the idea of making health care markets more efficient. It’s probably that they don’t like the idea of any kind of tax increase, and especially not the kind of tax increase that would be paid disproportionately by higher-income households, who they emphasize are the “engine of economic growth” in our economy–you know, the “job creators.”

So that’s how this bill to repeal the health reform law becomes characterized as a way to eliminate a “job-killing” law, and how the proposal is really perfectly consistent with the Republican supply-side ideology that says that tax increases, no matter of what variety, hurt the economy and reduce jobs, and deficits, if they come from tax cuts rather than spending increases, don’t matter.
Stuck in stupid.

Racism At Center Of GOP Movement As More Whites Became Republican During Obama Years


Quote:
The problem for Republicans, of course, is that the country is becoming less and less white. While appealing to the raw emotional reaction that many white voters had when they saw a black man elected President, the Republican Party was able to utilize that to gain Congressional victories in 2010. However, they still saw a huge defeat in the Presidential election in 2012 and lost House and Senate seats as well. The short term gains they enjoyed in 2010 couldn’t be sustained.

While some Republicans have admitted that they need to do more to reach out to minorities and women, the problem lies not in their messaging, but the message itself. On top of that, they have a core group of white voters who feel more and more isolated and believe that their country ‘has left them behind.’ The question for the GOP is how do you pull in more non-white voters while still convincing your hardcore base that you are for white ethnocentrism? At the same time, how do you gain a majority of women voters when you push for policies that try to keep women subservient and at the mercy of men?

Will the Republican Party learn? Will they try to get behind more inclusive policies and try to lessen the offensive rhetoric towards minorities? It is doubtful. It appears that Republicans feel they will retain the House in the midterms and perhaps even pickup the Senate majority. Therefore, there is no reason for them to go from what they know. They will continue to move in a more conservative direction until it finally becomes unsustainable.

For now, the GOP movement is going to focus on voter suppression as their main minority outreach program. It won’t work in the end. Besides becoming less white, this country is also becoming more liberal. Any gains the GOP sees in the midterm elections this year will be temporary. If they continue to be the party of white privilege and identification, they will quickly become a regional party with no hopes of winning the Presidency or holding onto either Congressional chamber.
The racists are dying. Long live the brown people.

So, racism is the HEART of the republican party. I'm really shocked you think you hide yours so well, ex.
LongWinded is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 11:06 AM   #26
Banned
 
Medicine Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Northeast
Posts: 9,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
And the full appeals court will uphold that decision. The 3 judge DC panel made what is undoubtedly a political decision, by assuming the Democrats would write a poison pill into their own bill. No court of appeals has ever ruled along those lines, so we'll see who comes off looking stupid.
C'mon...c'mon.....we should (at least) credit them, for ALL THEIR PRACTICE!!!!!



Medicine Man is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 12:11 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by skews13 View Post
The 4th circuit actually upheld the law at the same time today. Did you know that jimmy? The 4th held that the decision should refer to the statute if there is any question. The DC circuit seems to have made the opposite decision by not adhereing to that standard long adhered to by the courts. Also SCOTUS is loath to hear cases in which the lower courts are in disagreement with, so the plaintiffs are in no danger of getting there any time soon. The appeals process could take 3 years or longer. By then we will have a Hillary Clinton White House, and may very well have a majority in both Houses of Congress, since the Republicans will have as many as 26 Senate seats up for grabs, as well as all 435 House seats. I'm going with the full appeals court that has 7 Democratic appointees on it in an En Banc filing that will uphold the law as written. All of the Constitutional people I've been listening to all morning are of the opinion that the intent of the law was to be extended to the Federal exchanges as well as the states. Which makes the DC ruling a decision made based upon semantics in the language, and not the intent, which should make a full appeals court ruling that much easier to decide. Personally, i'm looking for any way to energize Democratic voters, both this year, and in 2016, so if the decision were to stand, it's fine by me. The 2016 campaign commercials of Republicans laughing that they took healthcare away from the sick and the elderly is a guaranteed winner for the Democrats, and i'll take that over a temporary set back of the law which would be ammended by a Democratically controlled Congress that would insure no other court decisions wold ever be able to alter or set back the law ever again. Those laws of unintended consequences can be a bitch.
I'm not interested in your usual insolvent moaning like a girl; tell me how the DC court erred in their decision.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 12:12 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongWinded View Post
Just more republicans and businesses sticking it to the poor and working poor and middle class. SSDD. It's to be expected. It will play out heavy against the republicans in the upcoming elections.



Greed and racism. That is what drives the right wing political party.
Show me the errors in the DC ruling.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 12:13 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: In the mind of liberal hippies
Posts: 38,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongWinded View Post
The two who voted on this were republican appointed. And we KNOW how the Senate has blocked the President's ability to appoint ANYONE to ANYTHING

Appeals Court Deals Major Blow To Obamacare



NOT allowing subsidies to be provided is akin to denying health care to the poor. My stars, how the "pro-life" movement has turned into the new Hitler era.
Instead is deflecting about who appoints who, show me where the DC court erred.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old July 22nd, 2014, 12:14 PM   #30
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Show me the errors in the DC ruling.

He can't, that is why he falls back onto the old Marxist ploy of shouting "racism".


excalibur is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
appeals, blow, burwell, court, destroys, federal, halbig, obamacare



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir The White House The White House 0 February 7th, 2013 09:24 AM
BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Sends Proposition 8 to Supreme Court! elmo5159 Gay and Lesbian Rights 1 June 5th, 2012 07:04 PM
Appeals court: Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional elmo5159 Gay and Lesbian Rights 30 June 1st, 2012 01:00 AM
Federal Appeals Court Upholds "obamacare" waitingtables Current Events 31 November 13th, 2011 05:33 AM
The Federal Appeals Process tadpole256 Political Talk 2 May 31st, 2005 11:21 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.