The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 84

Thread: Obamacare ... the legal stuff

  1. #1
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,181

    Default Obamacare ... the legal stuff

    It's hard to keep up with the lawsuits being filed.
    http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...1640312/page/2

    While the author of the article does give his own interpretation, most of the article quotes court written statements. I admit, I had to read the legalese twice to grasp what the court was saying.

    As we all know there is a "tax" assessed for employers failing to meet the mandates of the ACA. There is also a "tax" for individuals. You can't go to the court to get relief from the tax ... but these plaintiffs are in court contending that the credits for individuals (the subsidies that will be offered to individuals in the state exchanges) are not legal.

    There is also the question of whether suits can be heard before an plaintiff actually has been "damaged" by the law. That position also seems to lean in favor of the plaintiffs.

    . The relief they seek is to block the illegal tax credits, without which no penalty can be assessed. But even if we pretend (as the government does) that they are trying to block the collection of a tax, the federal district courts for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Pruitt) and the District of Columbia (Halbig) may now rely on the Fourth Circuit’s opinion in Liberty to reject the argument that the AIA applies to the employer mandate.
    The plaintiff states (the state of OK):

    The delay is at least an implicit admission by the federal government that the reporting requirements and other large employer mandate requirements are in fact injuring large employers such as the State.
    Whether one supports the ACA or not, one may have to admit that the legal complexities of the law are as convoluted as the law itself.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #2
    Senior Member luvmylabs23139's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,620

    Default

    The credits are simply a way of imposing a hidden tax on those that are not allowed the credit end of story.
    If I have to buy a policy that costs X because of KING JACKASS and it costs me X but someone else gets to pay nothing for the same thing I'm screwed by KING JACKASS.
    Hihope Hiland Heathen of Perth CD, RE, CGC, TDI

  3. #3
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,181

    Default

    Writing for the court in Clinton v. City of New York, Justice John Paul Stevens noted: "There is no provision in the [COLOR=#11B000 !important]Constitution[/COLOR] that authorizes the president to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes."

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2Z40n7URf

    So, what does one do when a POTUS does something like this anyhow? Do you call on the DOJ to enforce those laws?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,181

    Default

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/wh-oba...rticle/2533141

    The House has proposed two separate bills: one to legally delay the employer mandate; and a second one to similarly delay the individual mandate. The WH has stated that Obama will veto BOTH bills.

    Why would he veto a bill affirming what he has already done? It appears that he if he did not veto the bill, it would essentially acknowledge that his executive order delaying the employer mandate was not legal.

    He would veto the 2nd bill because the program needs the money from either the fines or the premiums of the young & healthy. The WH statement also indicates that approving it might "facilitate" efforts to repeal the law.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,181

    Default

    A bit off-topic for this thread.

    Scary to think this could happen. Guess we won't know until it actually takes place.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/study-...rticle/2533055
    The study's authors — Craig Garthwaite of Northwestern, Matthew Notowidigdo of the University of Chicago, and Tal Gross of Columbia — note that they can apply the lessons from Tennessee to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, because the relevant Medicaid population in Tennessee is similar to the one targeted in the planned Medicaid expansion under the health care overhaul.
    They predict that 4.2 million low-income people who currently have employer-provided health insurance will take up Medicaid under Obamacare, far more than official projections indicated. The economists also project that between 530,000 and 940,000 individuals will leave employment once they are offered public insurance.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,181

    Default

    Not really "legal" stuff ... but it is "fine print".

    We already know that "if you like your plan, you can keep it" didn't quite pan out. The next one was "if you like your doctor, you can keep him." That one may not pan out either.

    From the HHS website

    They told ABC News that Americans shouldn't have taken the president's unambiguous pledge so literally. Good to know.
    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...omise-n1644770
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,293

    Default

    Even the unionistas are getting into the act.

    UB

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...e/?mod=WSJBlog
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  8. #8
    Senior Member coachmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Did anybody except a few of the radical, died-in-the-wool, self-appointed intellectual elitists here on RTF really believe this disaster pushed by Obama would really work?

  9. #9
    Senior Member Raymond Little's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Lake Charles/Grand Chenier La
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    My largest health group will be introduced to ACA at their 8/1 renewal. No more age rating for groups, each member will pay the same premium according to the new formula. As expected the youngest members of the group are ready to riot over their 300% premium increase.

    I expect all individual health policies to be nonrenewed by the end of 2014 to eliminate the bleeding that will occur with the induvidual mandate begining Oct 2013.
    Last edited by Raymond Little; 07-23-2013 at 03:54 PM.
    Just Win

  10. #10
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,181

    Default

    LOL! The IRS employees' union wants to be exempt from Obamacare and keep their coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program ... just like Congress is trying to exempt themselves from Obamacare.

    Does it occur to anyone that the more exemptions that take place, the less $ there is to make Obamacare financially sustainable (if there were really any hope of that to begin with)?

    Exempting Congress from the law would be absolutely despicable. If it's such a great law, they should have to live by it just like everybody else.
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/irs-em...rticle/2533520
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •