|
Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of Obamacare
Don't worry about what it actually says, we'll tell you what it means. In a 6-3 ruling, the nation's highest court decided that the subsidies nearly 9 million people receive to help make their health insurance affordable -- a key part of the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare -- are legal nationwide and do not depend on where recipients live or purchase them. The ruling means the legislation is almost certain to survive past Obama's presidency and marks another enormous victory for the administration, which has been forced to defend the ACA time and time again since its 2010 enactment. President Obama called on critics to accept the law as permanent. The 'permanency' of a law is the purview of the people and their elected representatives in the Congress, not you, you communist wanker. "The Affordable Care Act is here to stay," Obama said in remarks in the Rose Garden after the ruling. "We've got more work to do, but what we're not gonna do is unroll what has now been woven into the fabric of America," he said. Obama argued that the law is working, helping tens of millions get coverage and slowing the increase of health care costs. "This is not an abstract thing anymore. This is not a set of political talking points. This is reality," he said. "It's working. In many ways this law is working better than it's supposed to." Never was "an abstract thing." It's socialism, pure and simple. The fight over the law now moves to the 2016 election. "Republicans should stop trying to tear down the law and start working across party lines to build on these successes, "Hillary Clinton said in a statement. Like the dems worked "across party lines" to craft the initial legislation ? Republican presidential candidates are all running on platforms that include repealing the law. Several issued statements Thursday reiterating that position. "This decision is not the end of the fight against Obamacare," former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush said. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the case, again siding with his liberal colleagues on the bench in support of the health care law. Roberts, who was nominated by Republican former President George W. Bush, was also a deciding vote in another landmark case regarding Obamacare from 2012. That's twice Roberts has smiled whilst handing us kak. The dissenters were the court's three most conservative members: Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. At issue in the case, King v. Burwell, was the legal interpretation of a small clause within the 900-page law regarding whether tax credits for buying insurance could only be available in states that had decided to run and operate their own health insurance exchanges. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter." Interpret the law in support of the people, not big government and insurance companies, for foks sake. Writing for the dissenting justices, Scalia cracked that the law had been influenced more by the Supreme Court than by any other government body. "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he wrote, referencing the acronym for the high court. The ruling had been anticipated for months. If the court had ruled against the legality of the subsidies, the decision would have likely invalidated the tax credits that millions of people relied on to purchase affordable health insurance -- an outcome that would have almost certainly resulted in those citizens giving up their coverage. Well at least we know why the regime had no 'Plan B.' The fix was in. Posted by: Besoeker 2015-06-25 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=421472 |