Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

*Except the Republican Party.

not necessarily. In the event that it does happen, what's next?

Either the GOP fixes the technicality in the law or they don't.

If they do, their base is mad. If they don't, they would be the reason for the loss of coverage and/or massive price increases and would pay dearly for it.

Honestly, if I was a GOP strategist, I'd not want it overruled. It puts the party in a no win situation.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Bummer about the exchanges... But I feel like if Roberts wanted to shitcan the law the trial over the mandate was his big chance.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Just to be clear, my schadenfreude is caused by the expressed misery of those in this thread, not the actual, real-life misery of folks who lose health insurance if the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies.

Oh, as long as everythings just about message board arguments and we can ignore who politics and these decisions actually effect.

 

[kess]

I was just about to get health insurance again and now this comes out?

Well, fuck me.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If the gut the subsidies Clinton and the GOP doesn't fix it Clinton can run on a tax cut the GOP let the supreme court raise

 

[NYCmetsfan]

That is what perplexes me about Republicans. When Democrats lose in presidential races, congressional races, gubernatorial, etc. people get upset because they will be effected, whether it's healthcare, jobs, unions, marriage, social security or losing pay raises (federal employees). They are most likely going to be negatively impacted in some way.

What do middle class republicans have to dread when republican candidates are rejected? "Shit, now I might have to do a back ground check when I buy my 500th gun! Taxes may be increased for millionaires! Labor union will still have power! Democrats are ruining everything!"

Edit: maybe they get upset simply because the other side won?

http://youtu.be/0PgjcgqFYP4

 

[kehs]

Millions of people the Republicans won't be able to convince that they DIDN'T have something to do with it.

"They got government out of my healthcare, and my bill went down!"

 

[Akainu]

Millions.

which includes republicans.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Lawsuit over Obamacare?

People have insurance.

Let it go.

Christ.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Does Roberts want to be known as the guy who took health insurance from millions of people?

It was different back when it was not fully put into effect but now this has massive implications.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Does Roberts want to be known as the guy who took health insurance from millions of people?

It was different back when it was not fully put into effect but now this has massive implications.

I hope Roberts gets crucified if he does.

 

[speculawyer]

Just to be clear, my schadenfreude is caused by the expressed misery of those in this thread, not the actual, real-life misery of folks who lose health insurance if the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies.

Wow. That is pathetic. I guess when you have the ability to ignore the real life misery you can be rationalize brutality.

 

[Oblivion]

Does Roberts want to be known as the guy who took health insurance from millions of people?

Many Republicans would kill for the honor.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Wow. That is pathetic. I guess when you have the ability to ignore the real life misery you can be rationalize brutality.

The dude above you wants Roberts crucified, and you're concerned about me being able to be rationalize brutality?

 

[BSsBrolly]

http://youtu.be/0PgjcgqFYP4

That looks like an SNL sketch... It's real!?!? Lol

Holy shit.

 

[BSsBrolly]

The dude above you wants Roberts crucified, and you're concerned about me being able to be rationalize brutality?

Roberts would deserve to be crucified for literally taking away healthcare from millions of people over a typo which is normally fixed with minor effort...

 

[ivysaur12]

The dude above you wants Roberts crucified, and you're concerned about me being able to be rationalize brutality?

I don't think anyone is literally hoping that if Roberts rules against this that he is nailed to a cross until he bleeds to death.

It's a figure of speech.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Roberts would deserve to be crucified for literally taking away healthcare from millions of people over a typo which is normally fixed with minor effort...

I disagree. No one deserves to be crucified. Don't play into that troll's bullshit like this.

Also, it was a figure of speech to start with.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I don't think anyone is literally hoping that if Roberts rules against this that is nailed to a cross until he bleeds to death.

It's a figure of speech.

Clearly you're too generous to your fellow liberals:

Roberts would deserve to be crucified for literally taking away healthcare from millions of people over a typo which is normally fixed with minor effort...

 

[BSsBrolly]

I disagree. No one deserves to be crucified. Don't play into that troll's bullshit like this.

Also, it was a figure of speech to start with.

Whoa, I don't mean literally crucified...

Edit: it was my understanding we all knew it was a figure of speech.

Double edit: yep, you're right. I wandered under the troll bridge.

 

[Elrond Hubbard]

There's no typo. People can get subsidies on exchanges "established by the state." If a state doesn't create an exchange, the federal government will create "such exchange." Should be QE fucking D.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Millions of people the Republicans won't be able to convince that they DIDN'T have something to do with it.

Multiple states like Michigan would likely just create their own websites, but I really think multiple red states won't move a finger to do anything about the situation.

 

[Metaphoreus]

There's no typo. People can get subsidies on exchanges "established by the state." If a state doesn't create an exchange, the federal government will create "such exchange." Should be QE fucking D.

"I command you to order a pepperoni and sausage pizza from Dominos. If Dominos won't deliver, then Pizza Hut shall deliver such pizza."

Would it be correct to later refer to the pizza delivered by Pizza Hut as "the pizza delivered by Dominos"? No, because saying "such pizza"--like saying "such Exchange"--doesn't change who performed the relevant action--whether delivering a pizza or establishing an exchange.

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't think anyone is literally hoping that if Roberts rules against this that he is nailed to a cross until he bleeds to death.

It's a figure of speech.

are you suggesting metapumpkiin wouldn't pick up on the context of something written down?

 

[kehs]

"I command you to order a pepperoni and sausage pizza from Dominos. If Dominos won't deliver, then Pizza Hut shall deliver such pizza."

Would it be correct to later refer to the pizza delivered by Pizza Hut as "the pizza delivered by Dominos"? No, because saying "such pizza"--like saying "such Exchange"--doesn't change who performed the relevant action--whether delivering a pizza or establishing an exchange.

Literal crucifixions occur as often as pizza orders in Meta's world.

 

[kess]

asphinctersayswhat

Corbett: Joe Paterno wrongly fired

 

[Wilsongt]

Are people really arguing with Metallic over a figure of speech? This is the same guy who supports the lawsuit. You know, the lawsuit that was filed because one word was made a sentence sound funny? Yeah. Not a good thing to do, folks.

 

[Oblivion]

"I command you to order a pepperoni and sausage pizza from Dominos. If Dominos won't deliver, then Pizza Hut shall deliver such pizza."

Would it be correct to later refer to the pizza delivered by Pizza Hut as "the pizza delivered by Dominos"? No, because saying "such pizza"--like saying "such Exchange"--doesn't change who performed the relevant action--whether delivering a pizza or establishing an exchange.

In your example, there is a clear and obvious distinction between Dominoes and Pizza Hut. There's no ambiguity. The case with the subsidies is based on the word "state", which could either refer to one of the fifty states, or could refer to the federal government itself.

They're not even close to the same thing and you know it.

 

[Elrond Hubbard]

"I command you to order a pepperoni and sausage pizza from Dominos. If Dominos won't deliver, then Pizza Hut shall deliver such pizza."

Would it be correct to later refer to the pizza delivered by Pizza Hut as "the pizza delivered by Dominos"? No, because saying "such pizza"--like saying "such Exchange"--doesn't change who performed the relevant action--whether delivering a pizza or establishing an exchange.

No, but the pizza delivered by Pizza Hut would still be the Pizza ordered by the state, and eligible to distribute subsidies slices.

 

[Metaphoreus]

In your example, there is a clear and obvious distinction between Dominoes and Pizza Hut. There's no ambiguity. The case with the subsidies is based on the word "state", which could either refer to one of the fifty states, or could refer to the federal government itself.

They're not even close to the same thing and you know it.

No, that's not true. "State" is defined in the statute as one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia. So, while the federal government is a "state" in the sense that political scientists use that term, it's not a "State" as used in the ACA.

 

[kess]

When I want the Republicans to get decimated next execu... uh I mean election, I totally mean it!

 

[ivysaur12]

are you suggesting metapumpkiin wouldn't pick up on the context of something written down?

I was going to point that out, but I felt it too biting. But then I saw his response. Okay then.

 

[Elrond Hubbard]

I guess the only real question is if 1321 serves as a fallback for 1311 or not.

It should be painfully obvious that the correct reading of the law goes:

If the state sets up an exchange under 1311 we go directly to 1401. If there is no state exchange -> 1401 still runs through 1311, which has been re-routed through 1321, and everything still works.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I was going to point that out, but I felt it too biting. But then I saw his response. Okay then.

Oh, come on. Y'all don't have to hold back.

I guess the only real question is if 1321 serves as a fallback for 1311 or not.

It should be painfully obvious that the correct reading of the law goes:

If the state sets up an exchange under 1311 we go directly to 1401. If there is no state exchange -> 1401 still runs through 1311, which has been re-routed through 1321, and everything still works.

It's not quite that simple. Nobody contests that 1321 serves as a fallback for 1311. If a state doesn't establish an exchange under 1311, then HHS establishes one under 1321. But even the D.C. Circuit panel in Halbig concluded that an exchange established by HHS under 1321 was an exchange established under 1311, because of the "such Exchange" language. But they also concluded that HHS was not a state, which meant that an HHS-established exchange was not an "exchange established by the State under section 1311."

 

[SenorArdilla]

Now that Republicans control both Houses, what can they accomplish on their side?

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Now that Republicans control both Houses, what can they accomplish on their side?

The following:

- Try to damage Obamacare repeatedly (I think they're next victory will be making sure Obamacare is crippled)
- Pass Keystone through any means necessary
- Some infrastructure omnibus package which includes less regulations and tax cuts to appeal the average citizen while slashing nearly everything
- Food stamp destruction
- Pretty much reinstating policies that Bush Jr had

 

[BSsBrolly]

The following:

- Try to damage Obamacare repeatedly (I think they're next victory will be making sure Obamacare is crippled)
- Pass Keystone through any means necessary
- Some infrastructure omnibus package which includes less regulations and tax cuts to appeal the average citizen while slashing nearly everything
- Food stamp destruction
- Pretty much reinstating policies that Bush Jr had

Then it's time to return the filibuster favor and for Obama to start vetoing.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Then it's time to return the filibuster favor and for Obama to start vetoing.

The problem is that I'm sure Obama and the next pres (if it's Hilary) will spend all their energy doing veto after veto. Then he has to explain why to the public and I can see the Republicans changing the public view to "Hey look Dems are obstructing!"

I believe they can spin it that way easily too.

Adding to the list: some kind of anti-abortion/anti-equal pay bill

 

[BSsBrolly]

The problem is that I'm sure Obama and the next pres (if it's Hilary) will spend all their energy doing veto after veto. Then he has to explain why to the public and I can see the Republicans changing the public view to "Hey look Dems are obstructing!"

I believe they can spin it that way easily too.

Adding to the list: some kind of anti-abortion/anti-equal pay bill

It worked for Republicans, they blocked everything and somehow people thought it was Obama and the Senate. It's time we return the favor.

 

[jamesinclair]

It worked for Republicans, they blocked everything and somehow people thought it was Obama and the Senate. It's time we return the favor.

One little problem.

The dems are the best cavers in the world.

 

[Averon]

It worked for Republicans, they blocked everything and somehow people thought it was Obama and the Senate. It's time we return the favor.

I have not confidence at all that Dems can get away with obstruction as much as the GOP did.

For one, the Dems do not have a Fox News to drive their message that it is the other side's fault that they have to block everything.

Secondly, the current Democratic leadership and senior officials are political cowards. Put just a slight bit of pressure on them and watch as the GOP peel away wishy-washy Democrats to their side. At that point, the GOP can technically claim bipartisanship on their issue and the media will run with it.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

I have not confidence at all that Dems can get away with obstruction as much as the GOP did.

For one, the Dems do not have a Fox News to drive their message that it is the other side's fault that they have to block everything.

Secondly, the current Democratic leadership and senior officials are political cowards. Put just a slight bit of pressure on them and watch as the GOP peel away wishy-washy Democrats to their side. At that point, the GOP can technically claim bipartisanship on their issue and the media will run with it.

Exactly - we do have Colbert and co, but the problem is that they deliver the message with humor. But that isn't enough to make voters vote. We'll laugh, enjoy it... and remarkably, not vote.

Meanwhile, Republican messaging delves into the part of the human mind that makes them feel that there really is a problem and the only way to fix it IS to vote.

I just hope the next 2 years the Dem party learns from it's mistakes. Or learns of a strategy to energize their base. The voters are there (or else Romney would have won) but they simply aren't motivating them at all.

 

[KingK]

If the supreme court throws out the federal exchanges my whole family and I, and most of my friends' families will all lose our health insurance. One of my friend's mother is currently battling cancer.

But i guess it'll be ok if she can no longer afford treatment and dies, as long as Meta gets his fucking schadenfreude and liberal tears.

 

[kehs]

 

[Jack Remington]

If the supreme court throws out the federal exchanges my whole family and I, and most of my friends' families will all lose our health insurance. One of my friend's mother is currently battling cancer.

But i guess it'll be ok if she can no longer afford treatment and dies, as long as Meta gets his fucking schadenfreude and liberal tears.

Metapod might evolve into Bannederfree if that actually happens, one would hope.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Metapod might evolve into Bannederfree if that actually happens, one would hope.

Is this a Pokemon joke?

 

[Black Mamba]

BTW, another ramification of the SCOTUS ruling going against the ACA is millions of people would technically owe the money back to the gov't. And in most cases, a large fucking sum of money.

I'm sure that will go over well. I just can't imagine the SCOTUS attempting that. The disruption in people's lives would be enormous.

Nothing they've ever done would compare to it. Not even close.

 

[BertramCooper]

Exactly - we do have Colbert and co, but the problem is that they deliver the message with humor. But that isn't enough to make voters vote. We'll laugh, enjoy it... and remarkably, not vote.

I hope Oliver's weekly topic on Sunday is low voter turnout.

 

[Necrovex]

I hope Oliver's weekly topic on Sunday is low voter turnout.

That'd be a fantastic note to end the season on.

 

[Metaphoreus]

BTW, another ramification of the SCOTUS ruling going against the ACA is millions of people would technically owe the money back to the gov't. And in most cases, a large fucking sum of money.

I'm not sure that's true. The federal government certainly doesn't think so:

Petitioners and their amici are also wrong to assert that immediate review is necessary because taxpayers receiving credits through federally-facilitated Exchanges are "potentially incurring thousands of dollars" in mounting liability for back taxes that would be owed in the event that this Court ultimately invalidated the IRS regulation. . . . Precisely because tax cases often implicate strong reliance interests, "[t]he Internal Revenue Code gives the [IRS] discretion to decline to apply decisions of this Court retroactively." Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz, 541 U.S. 739, 748 n.4 (2004) (citing 26 U.S.C. 7805(b)(8). If this Court were ever to adopt petitioners' position, it would "doubtless be an appropriate occasion for exercise of that discretion" by the IRS.