What does the SCOTUS Obamacare ruling mean?

[Zaac]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to uphold the availability of tax subsidies related to President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, the 2010 Affordable Care Act better known as Obamacare.

President Obama is scheduled to make a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision at 11:30 a.m. ET from the White House Rose Garden.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/live-scotus-obamacare-reaction-the-u-s-supreme-122423986811.html

 

[preachinjesus]

That they have the hermeneutical ability of egalitarians.

 

[poncho]

If the Supreme Court had ruled against the administration, the 7 million enrollees currently subsidized by the Internal Revenue Service could have been faced with plans they can’t afford. That would have crippled the entire healthcare law and given Republicans an opportunity to roll back the law and present their own ideas.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-all-obamacare-subsidies-in-win-for-obama/

It means SCOTUS no longer serves it's purpose of protecting American citizens from corporate/government abuses.

 

[carpro]

It means Congress can adjourn for good. They have rendered themselves irrelevant.

Legislation no longer means what it says. It means whatever the president and the Supreme Court says it means and can be changed at will to mean anything they want it to.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

SCOTUS: they were the criminal accomplices who got Obeymecare passed in the first place? Did anybody ever think they'd back out now?

Can't WAIT for the gh3y marriage decision.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

 

[carpro]

SCOTUS: they were the criminal accomplices who got Obeymecare passed in the first place? Did anybody ever think they'd back out now?

Of course not. Kagan even violated her own precedent. Politics rules. Even in the Supreme court.

 

[revmwc]

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday to uphold the availability of tax subsidies related to President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, the 2010 Affordable Care Act better known as Obamacare.

President Obama is scheduled to make a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision at 11:30 a.m. ET from the White House Rose Garden.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/live-scotus-obamacare-reaction-the-u-s-supreme-122423986811.html

It means the poorest of poor can't get coverage because they can't get subsidies.

You can't get a subsidy unless you file an income tax and it you don't make enough to file an income tax as several folks I know you won't have health care coverage. It also means rates for the middle class will continue to rise as their benefits fall.

Example my daughter lives with us and doesn't work, she has 3 children and stays home to care for them. Her learning disability has kept her from working a good job. She called to check on a subsidy and was told since she doesn't file for income tax she doesn't qualify for a subsidy. So I now cover her children under my policy at work.

For her I pay for a policy that is the same price as the one I had on her and her daughter for several years but didn't qualify under the new law. So the cost of the new insurance for only her is a little more than the one on her and her daughter was plus the benefits are not as good. The deductable is higher and the split went from 50-20 to 70 -30 more for the policy more out of pocket.

It is a bad law and benefits the fat cat Insurance companies who are in cohoots with the legislators who past the law and I wonder which democrat received the biggest kickback from the insurance company on that one.

 

[blessedwife318]

It means that the SCOTUS is in Obamas back pocket and has no interest in upholding the Constitution or even protecting people against political overreach. It also means that no one will have any respect for John Robert since he has shown himself once again to be a turncoat and will do what liberals demand of him at the expense of the country and the Constitution.

 

[Don]

“We really should start calling this law Scotus-care,” Justice Scalia said, to laughter from the audience.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0

 

[Salty]

You MUST file a tax return if you make more than a threshold OR to get a refund. All others are not REQUIRED to file a return. However, it is my understanding you can still file a return - even if no tax is owed or no refund due.
Might be worth checking out.

 

[revmwc]

You MUST file a tax return if you make more than a threshold OR to get a refund. All others are not REQUIRED to file a return. However, it is my understanding you can still file a return - even if no tax is owed or no refund due.
Might be worth checking out.

Now you will be charged a penalty on your Tax Return if you don't have health coverage. Yet they say it isn't a tax but the largest taxing agency in the Country administers the Health Care bill. Figure that one out.

 

[Salty]

Now you will be charged a penalty on your Tax Return if you don't have health coverage. Yet they say it isn't a tax but the largest taxing agency in the Country administers the Health Care bill. Figure that one out.

Calling it a tax is how Obama got it thur the SCOTUS.

Hopefully, we will see a Rep POTUS, and both Houses of Congress in 2017. If so, we may just see Obamacare overturned!

 

[InTheLight]

That they have the hermeneutical ability of egalitarians.

LOL.

Pelosi: "We have to pass it to see what's in it."

SCOTUS: "Now that we can see what's in it, that's not what they meant when they wrote it."

 

[preachinjesus]

The sad thing is that the ACA should never have been passed to begin with solely on the grounds that it was terribly written.

My position has long been that, as the richest nation on earth, we should provide basic healthcare for all citizens who desire it but not require it. The government should create a healthcare system (Medicare without the age limits) that provides access while also creating genuinely funded alternatives for the public that, by doing so, provide competition against out of control health insurance companies.

The ACA is a badly written law that just got a bailout from the SCOTUS.

 

[Salty]

The sad thing is that the ACA should never have been passed to begin with solely on the grounds that it was terribly written..

Very true

My position has long been that, as the richest nation on earth, we should provide basic healthcare for all citizens who desire it but not require it. The government .....should

That government should be the State/Commonwealth - IAW the 10th Amendment.

The ACA is a badly written law that just got a bailout from the SCOTUS.

Fully agree

 

[Jkdbuck76]

My position has long been that, as the richest nation on earth, we should provide basic healthcare for all citizens who desire it but not require it.

What? And divert money from the MIMC (Military Industrial Media Complex) and from fighting ISIS and terror abroad and Libyans and al Qaeda and the Taliban and, and.... A news piece was run about Denmark's best-in-the-world guhbment healthcare.....of course they can afford it---America and the Brits are dumb enough to protect them all the time so they hardly have to spend on their military.

I think it is too late to turn things around here. We'll never see a president who will take us out of conflicts and divert OUR tax dollars to OUR citizens and OUR infrastructure. Bush wouldn't. Obama hasn't....oh sure, we were told about all those shovel-ready projects, right?

The only thing shovel-ready would be the tons of bovine solid waste coming out of DC. When are we as a people gonna say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH to throwing billions yea trillions all over the globe? It is not sustainable!

 

[Jedi Knight]

Now you will be charged a penalty on your Tax Return if you don't have health coverage. Yet they say it isn't a tax but the largest taxing agency in the Country administers the Health Care bill. Figure that one out.

Its called deception.