This is just a question......to discuss

What?

Some guy is recorded saying something stupid, so you think that enacted laws are void? If that was the truth, Rush Limbaugh has single handedly reversed every GOP policy in the last 25 years.

Because someone has a recording, you think that 11 million people should be thrown off of their insurance plans and families who were finally able to get insurance for handicapped children will be without medical care?

You did, however, make one accurate comment. "I honestly don't know". That I agree with. You don't have a clue.

Do you have a link to 11 million getting thrown off along with their handicapped children,or are you just making up stuff and hope nobody calls you on it???????


Some guy.....LOL....
He was a key architect of both the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform, sometimes referred to as "Romneycare", and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as the "ACA" and "Obamacare". He became the focus of a media and political firestorm in late 2014 when videos surfaced in which he made controversial statements about the legislative process, marketing strategies, and public perception surrounding the passage of the ACA.

======snip=======
n 2009–10 Gruber served as a technical consultant to the Obama Administration and worked with both the administration and U.S. Congress to help craft the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as the ACA or "Obamacare". The Act was signed into law in March 2010, and Gruber has been described as an "architect", "writer", and "consultant" of the legislation. He was widely interviewed and quoted during the roll-out of the legislation.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Gruber_%28economist%29#Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Apparently. obama thought that would be a good idea, because that's what happened.

Because you are suggesting Chief Justice Roberts- appointed by the REPUBLICAN PARTY AND GEORGE BUSH, did not know what he was doing.

Is that what you are suggesting here



Yeah, Chief Justice Roberts is so silly that he will beg to be impeached for his silliness and President Obama will get to pick his replacement.

do not, by themselves, constitute impeachable offenses.

Actually I could suggest grounds for impeaching Roberts--such as his having lied under oath at his confirmation hearings--but realistically, it is not going to happen.

surely the ruling SCOTUS made on the ACA was based on SCOTUS, especially the CHIEF JUSTICE
knowing what it was he was ruling in.
Because this minutia here was already known at the time of the ruling.

In what world would Roberts now go against the very ruling he singlehandedly crafter the majority with?

He would forever stain his reputation, and never again would anything he does make sense.

And he knows what is coming in 2016 and that he will be on the minority side of the court for many years.

and he is one who likes majority rulings.

Roberts is not stupid. Has there ever been one case where the same justice overruled himself in another case
based on minutia as this is?

I knew that I was going off on a tangent only remotely related to your point, and did it anyway.

or stupid to develop a state exchange. I think the answer is obvious to most, and I will be quite surprised if anyone but the most callous right wing Justice votes against the ACA based upon this.

Because he is on record saying it was intentionally made confusing on that topic

As written the State Exchanges cannot receive Federal subsidies

The Administrstion says its a typo, Gruber says its written deceptively to tempt the states into the Federal exchange

No Subsidies and Obamacare implodes


(And I am in the 58% who'll be cheering when it does )

That think the Government needs to stay the Hell away from Healthcare

If you want to pass a helpful law allow health insurance to be sold nationwide (like auto insurance) to allow competition

Oh and it is NOT a Right, it's a commodity. You are not entitled to a Doctors Labor just by virtue of being here

someone else when it comes to health care. But, that's really what separates right and left wingers.

VA hospitals, Tricare, Indian Health Service, public health hospitals, subsidized emergency rooms...

I'm guessing well over half the US population relies on government for at least part of its health care, and you want government out of it?

While your at it, why not get rid of employer health plans, too? Let that free market for insurance take care of those employees.

are not the same type of entitlement but were in fact incentives offered in lieu of compensation to military personnel who chose a military career path instead of using their skill set as civilians.

Thinking that medicaid and even SSI given to those who've never contributed to the tax system is somehow an equivalency to the VA/Tricare system isn't a solid analogy.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise, but those components are often touted as a form of delayed compensation, especially to those of us who served back when the monthly wage was about the same as, or a little less than, the prevailing minimum for those sitting at E-3 or lower and not much higher at the base level for those at E-4 to E-6.

I do think you touch on part of the problem issue in your last sentence, when health insurance was allowed as a component of compensation instead of receiving a higher wage it created this current fiasco we have now with health care insurance. We never allowed homeowners insurance or automobile insurance to be offered in lieu of compensation, it was a mistake to allow it for health insurance, but that gate's long been opened and the whole herd long gone for a reversal these days.

other payments for medical services may not be. But, they are all federal programs paying for health care. There are also state programs out there.

The point was made that government should just pull out of healthcare and my point is simply that government is so involved that it would be impossible.

I don't think anybody makes an appearance before the Supreme Court except the attorneys for the two (or more) sides. They don't play videos. The Justices usually ask questions while the attorneys try to make their cases in argument.

such that he becomes indictable for misrepresentation, then yes SCOTUS could kill it and Gruber will have to appear. However, we really don't know anything for sure, and since our government is now as crooked as a SA banana republic, we don't know what kind of money will change hands behind the scenes. I hope to hell Horrorcare is killed because what comes next makes what preceded it look like a walk in the park. That's my take.

The factual record is developed in the lower courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court and other Courts of Appeal decide questions of law as applicable to the developed record as presented in the briefs and argued by attorneys before them.

Where is Bruce Willis when you need him?

Yippee-ACA other suckers!!

There was no way in hell the scotus would strike it down. It was a tax that had not taken affect yet so their hands were tied.

Gruber has zero to do with crap right now (other than people like to say his name, etc). The scotus, imho, will strike down (at some point) the mandate. Congress will drag their feet until they do (though they will go through the usual motions they know won't do anything).

The exchanges will most likely get a pass by the court and they will compare it something like highway funds based on speed limits/etc and so on.

I just want feasible answers