Millions risk losing cover as Justices take up Obamacare Challenge

The GOP S. Ct. does not have the balls to discredit itself by ruling against the ACA on this hypertechnicality.

Just like the original challenge to the ACA they have to make an occasional ruling to benefit the 99% to maintain the guise that they are not toadies of the corporate elite. Besides the insurance companies and drug companies have done well with the ACA aka as Romney Care so it is not the typical corporate elite vs the little guy that they can jump on for a decision favorable to the corporate elite..

 

The next thing you know, they'll be giving soldiers free uniforms and ammunition!

 

Actually I saw where some in the GOP Congress were wanting to have the military stop having pensions and just give them some 401 k) type product. The pensions are getting a bit expensive.

As I have always maintainted benefits for veterans are just viewed by them as welfare for other people's children.

 

This makes me smile.

G.O.P. Is Wary About Winning on Health Law

Republicans in Congress would face an enormously complicated challenge to fashion an alternative, and they fear the fallout could lead to election losses if millions of Americans abruptly found themselves without health insurance. […]

The consequences could be felt in statehouses and on Capitol Hill. Of the 34 states that use the federal insurance marketplace and would be most affected, 26 have Republican governors. Of the Senate seats up for election next year, 24 are held by Republicans, and 22 of those are in federal exchange states that could lose their subsidies.

Asked if she hoped the court would rule for the plaintiffs, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, paused a moment, then said: "Yes, I guess I do. It would provide an opportunity to transition to a new law, or an improved version of the Affordable Care Act." But she added, "I don't think it would be fair to cut off people who have been using Obamacare subsidies."

 

How about instead of wasting taxpayer money and time voting to get rid of Obamacare for more than the 56th time, you people that have such a problem with the bill ACTUALLY come up with a solution or alternative instead of just spewing out junk like, "RABBLE, RABBLE, RABBLE, WE HATE OBAMACARE, RABBLE, RABBLE, RABBLE, GET RID OF IT, RABBLE, RABBLE, RABBLE, WHO CARES ABOUT THE PEOPLE ON IT ALREADY, RABBLE"

 

Military pensions and disability don't show up in the military budget. If it did, it would be showing that we spend over a trillion dollars a year on the military.

If you consider that most military join right out of high school, they can retire and are eligible for pension by the time they are 38. If they live until they are 82, then the government will be paying them for 60 years for 20 years worth of work. Military pensions are pretty generous in the current climate. My wife's grandfather made more in retirement than he ever did serving in Korea and Vietnam.

I'm not saying if I agree or disagree with their pension. I'm just stating that it is one of the biggest costs for the government and it is only getting larger due to longer life expectancy.

 

Republicans had a chance to shape it but they choose to boycott the entire process. That was indeed disgraceful to play politics with such an important issue.

Anyway, would love to hear what responsible health care reform is. You mean vouchers? Please tell me you aren't going to say vouchers! And HSA accounts right? Which already exist and don't work for the middle class.

How does a person making $30k a year afford health coverage? Please do give a solution. This is going to be good.

 

Don't forget allowing customers to buy insurance from other states, increasing competition and lowering prices. Don't forget cutting waste and reducing fraud.

 

Millions could be relieved from unlawful taxation/mandates as Justices take up Obamacare Challenge

 

huge blow to government price fixing today, a great day for individual liberty

 

What blow was that? The Supreme Court didn't rule on the ACA today.

 

What unlawful taxation/mandates? The supreme court already rules the taxation and mandate aspect lawful.

 

The Supreme Court already ruled on the ACA, you just don't know it because you don't subscribe to the supremecourthollic insider news letter.

 

The case in question concerns mandates/taxes as well as subsidies. That's the harm the plaintiff is contending.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-seven-myths-about-king-v-burwell/

 

they ruled on crop quotas

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/horne-v-department-of-agriculture-2/

Government was confiscating crops that went over supply quotas, and SCOTUS ruled their must be compensation under the Amendment V takings clause.

That they can even take your crops at all should be a Fifth Amendment violation, but now at least they have to pay you for them.

Which as I read it, means there is now a guaranteed government buyer for excess crops if the Feds want to continue keeping supply artificially low and prices artificially high.

 

Whaaaat????

More subsidies for farmers?

 

Oh I oppose the subsidies as well.

 

I dont think you realize how damaging supply gluts are for farmers. These programs were instituted to protect farmers from themselves. Farming is such a boom or bust industry that one bad year can flat out bankrupt a farm. Farm subsidies were created for a reason. They stabilized an industry that was prone to routine market failures due to bad weather (lack of crops) or unexpectedly good weather (supply gluts). If crop prices get too low because of good weather, farmers lose in that scenario too because the return on their harvest simply isn't good enough to last the year.

That's why programs like the USDA raisin program were implemented. It was a price stabilization program to protect farmers. It was also an attempt to protect family farms who unlike corporate farms dont have the capital to survive multiple bad years. Additionally, one of the other goals of the farm bill was to actually encourage conservation and good farming practices (like crop rotation) via subsidies and crop insurance.

I do agree that farm subsides are out of control but they serve a valuable purpose and it would be extremely damaging to just dump them entirely. The problem is that politics enters the subsidy programs so we end up protecting farming industries that dont need or deserve it. Additionally, there are corporate farms that also don't deserve the level of protection that they get. One good thing that came out of the 2014 Farm bill was that direct payments to farmers were eliminated and replaced with crop insurance. That's a big and smart change.

The raisin program was probably unconstitutional in its current form but the underlying premise still has value.

 

Government insurance is a subsidy by another name, just not a guaranteed one.

Socialization of risk, privatization of rewards always leads to bad outcomes (higher food prices in this case).

The market has plenty of mechanisms for hedging against weather (private insurance, prediction markets, etc.)

 

How the **** are we the only westernized country without a complete insurance program for all of our people?

I mean, just friggen do it already and let the insurance companies go bye bye or move to supplemental - they are a rip off to our citizens anyway.

DD