[RealJustme]

While in Germany Obama blasts the Supreme Court for accepting the case and said they have no business making a ruling on Obamacare. There is only one reason Obama would do that now, one of his cronies in the Supreme Court have given him the heads up the Court will be ruling Obamacare as set up is unlawful. If the Court was planning on ruling in his favor you can bet he would have phrased their work and claimed the Court had given validity to his actions.

President Obama bluntly challenged the Supreme Court over a pending ruling on the validity of ObamaCare subsidies, complaining Monday that the court should never have taken up the case -- and warning that a ruling against subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law.

The president and his administration's legal team for months have fought the Affordable Care Act court challenge, which is over whether people who enrolled through the federal HealthCare.gov are entitled to subsidies.

But the president's comments on Monday, during a press conference on the sidelines of the G-7 summit in Germany, were perhaps his toughest to date. He strongly suggested the court would be running afoul of established legal guidance if it rules against the administration, and took the rare step of saying the court should have stayed out of this fight.

[elklindo69]

@SenJohnThune

Six million people risk losing their health care subsidies, yet @POTUS continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people.

That's from the guy who co-sponsored legislation to extend Obamacare subsidies to 2017 in order to avoid blow back.

:roll:

[RealJustme]

Glad you agree on this one Elk. Obamacare was a social and financial disaster.

[RealJustme]

Obama today says if the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare it will be the States' and Congress' problem to deal with how to fix it.

Soooo insurers say there will be double digit increases because the costs have been more than was presented by the government. Add to that millions are surely set to lose the tax payer handouts paying an average of 80% of the bill at the same time the costs are going up. All this while their deductibles are an average of $5,000.00 that they must first pay out their pockets if they seek treatment.

So what does Obama do, he claimed today, it will be the Supreme Courts' fault if millions lose their coverages and it will up to Congress and the States to fix it.

[sillydaddy]

We all know.....It's all Obama's fault.

[johnforbes]

The crystal clear language of Obamacare would suggest a ruling against Obama.

But we all know Roberts was a weasel before. He wrote most of the Obamacare ruling dissent, then lacked the backbone to join his own dissent.

He knew very well Obamacare was not a tax, and that the penalty for not getting it was not in the revenue part of the bill, and the White House said the next morning it was not a tax but thanks for the absurd ruling in our favor.

[RealJustme]

Obama wouldn't be out bashing the Supreme Court ahead of time if he didn't have inside information the ruling will be against him. If he felt the Supreme Court would be ruling in his favor he would be talking them up, he already knows what the decision will be.

[elklindo69]

Obama today says if the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare it will be the States' and Congress' problem to deal with how to fix it.

Soooo insurers say there will be double digit increases because the costs have been more than was presented by the government. Add to that millions are surely set to lose the tax payer handouts paying an average of 80% of the bill at the same time the costs are going up. All this while their deductibles are an average of $5,000.00 that they must first pay out their pockets if they seek treatment.

So what does Obama do, he claimed today, it will be the Supreme Courts' fault if millions lose their coverages and it will up to Congress and the States to fix it.

Justme's tortured bullshittery is off the hook...

So let me get something straight here. It was a conservative special interest group who decided to question and subsequently litigate the definition of "state" in the legislation in the courts.

And once the GOP figured out that if they actually won, millions in their state would lose the insurance subsidies, thereby leaving millions without coverage and a hefty tax bill. As a consequence the GOP sponsored legislation to extend subsidies until 2017.

So the conservatives will be extending subsidisies for a government program that they have failed to repeal some 50 plus times......

Go figure!!!

LMAO

:lol:

[RealJustme]

So let me get something straight here. It was a conservative special interest group who decided to question and subsequently litigate the definition of "state" in the legislation in the courts.

Odd that you consider the Supreme Court a conservative special interest group. If not the Supreme Court, who should define the definition of State?

[johnforbes]

If the crystal clear language of the law makes any difference, the subsidies will end for some.

But does anything matter at all except politics?

In the original Obamacare care, it was crystal clear what was correct. Obamacare was never a tax, and Obama himself angrily denied that suggestion long before the Court rule.

But the Court still issued its preposterous original Obamacare ruling.

Find me the list of "Miranda Rights" in the Constitution. They are not there. The Court just made them up.

[Clownkicker]

"Supreme Court set to rule against Obamacare"-RealTool

And another of RealTool's idiotic prognostications bites the dust. :lol:


Will he ever tire of making a fool of himself?
And how's your Fluor stock doing?

[Malcolm]

June 26, 2015
The forgotten 35 million uninsured
Physicians for a National Health Program - Today’s decision by the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s premium subsidies in about three dozen states will spare more than 6 million Americans the health and financial harms associated with the sudden loss of health insurance coverage.

For that reason alone the decision must be welcomed: Having health insurance is better than not having coverage, as several research studies have shown.

That said, the suffering that many Americans are experiencing today under our current health care arrangements is intolerable, with approximately 35 million people remaining uninsured, a comparable number underinsured, and rapidly growing barriers to medical care in the form of rising premiums, co-payments, coinsurance and deductibles, and narrowing networks.

The unfortunate reality is that the ACA, despite its modest benefits, is not a remedy to our health care crisis:

(1) it will not achieve universal coverage, as it will still leave at least 27 million uninsured in 2025,

(2) it will not make health care affordable to Americans with insurance, because of high co-pays, deductibles and gaps in coverage that leave patients vulnerable to financial ruin in the event of serious illness, and

(3) it will not control costs.

Why is this so? Because the ACA perpetuates a dominant role for the private insurance industry. Each year, that industry siphons off hundreds of billions of health care dollars for overhead, profit and the paperwork it demands from doctors and hospitals; denies care in order to increase insurers’ bottom line; and obstructs any serious effort to control costs. In contrast, a single-payer system — an improved Medicare for All — would achieve truly universal care, affordability, and effective cost control. It would put the interests of our patients — and our nation’s health — first.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files ... tables.pdf
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publica ... derinsured

[RealJustme]

I had more faith in the Supreme Court just following the law than I should have given them. The court's decision was purely political. Had I known they were going to be making a political judgment I would have invested heavily in the private health insurance companies who are the only winners in this.

The health insurance companies signed up for Obamacare can now operate like they're a government agency and don't have to worry about spending or efficiencies as an endless flow of tax money backs their "guaranteed" profit. You can bet their executives received huge bonus checks within hours of the Court's decision. What better company to invest with than one insured by the government to turn a profit no matter what.

[Clownkicker]

Wow, RealTool is beginning to see the folly of having private insurance companies involved in health care.

A little late to the party, but he'll get there eventually.

[elklindo69]

What better company to invest with than one insured by the government to turn a profit no matter what.

Oil and Gas

Military contractors

Financials

etc...

[RealJustme]

Wow, RealTool is beginning to see the folly of having private insurance companies involved in health care

Anything the government get it's involved in costs more, I assure you Vet's wish they were dealing with private insurance companies for their health care than the VA, which has 350% more operational cost on handling claims than private companies who do it better. Imagine a private insurance company making a patient wait over 6 months for an appointment just to see a doctor, they would have their asses sued off the first time it happens, the government does it, people complain, Congress complains and the government yawns and says give us more money and we'll try and do better.

God forbid my family has to give up our private health insurance and have to deal with a public employee to get the care we need, not to mention the increased costs.

[Clownkicker]

"I assure you Vet's wish they were dealing with private insurance companies for their health care than the VA,..."-RealTool

That's just flat out ignorance, Tool.
Of the six members of my family who use the VA, not one of them would go anywhere else unless they had to.
And they have no desire whatsoever to buy private insurance instead.
Their care has always been exceptional.

You're talking out of your ass, as usual.

[Malcolm]

Wrong Prescription? The failed promise of the Affordable Care Act

In July 2009, as the Affordable Care Act moved through Congress, Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, laughed at the idea that any legislator would actually read the bill before voting on it. If such full-body immersion were necessary to support the A.C.A., he said, “I think we would have very few votes.” In March 2010, just before the law passed, speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made a similar point. Addressing a national conference of county officials, she declared, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

http://harpers.org/archive/2015/07/wrong-prescription/