The Supreme Court backed the ACA (well, simple majority of justices), now they just want to rule on clarifying a technical discrepancy. At worst, they can ask Congress to revise law making subsidies available regardless of exchange. It's back to the tax issue that 'saved' the Act to begin with.

They couldn't dawdle, this has to be resolved for 2014 income tax period.

the intent was not to exclude subsidies for the states that didn't set up exchanges, then no need for Congressional action.

Now, what if Supreme Court does say Congress needs to revise, or those people who were subsidized will owe back the money? I think the lame duck Congress would somehow find a way to fix. Which could be a consideration of the timing of judicial review.

I just don't think 5 justices will try to hurt us that bad when the intent of the law was so clear.

I'm an optimist.

We'll be long past the lame duck Congress when the ruling comes out.

we will have billions in subsidies paid out. This issue could be resolved easily by Congress. All bills have technical issues that are just rewritten. Used to be how Congress worked. If Congress comes back and starts to work, the issue will be resolved.

The Republicans have said they want to fix ACA. Here is a place to start.

be gutting and crippling it.

That the architects of the law miscalculated and it's blowing-up in their faces is not the fault of those who, from the beginning, have been calling for actual HEALTHCARE rather than billions of dollars of taxpayer money being sent each year to for-profit private corporations.

This law was never a segue to SP and anyone saying so is delusional. Once it was passed we had two choices: claim the law was a success or admit the law was a failure that needed replacing. If it were a success there would be no need to change it. If it was a failure we demonstrated we have no idea on how to properly administrate national projects. No politician in their right mind is going to make either of those arguments and they never intended to do so. They were never going to ask for the law to be morphed into SP.

Add in the fact the ACA has a slush fund to prop-up corporate profits and this pig of law is to buy off corporate complicity which in turn makes the pols hidebound to the corporations. It's incestuous at best.

But hey, let's just blame those who warned us and were actually correct.

are just wrong. As usual.

The law is working.

How you got from FDL to TP staggers the imagination. Rather sad in its obvious desperation.

The only ones claiming that are Teabaggers.

If you want billions of dollars of taxpayer money given to for-profit corporations to supply people with policies with prohibitively high deductibles then you might consider the law a success.

I don't know if corporate profits are a regular complaint of the Tea Party. You, apparently, are more familiar with their literature than I.

Isn't it about time you guys recognized that the ACA is far better than what the GOP with the aid of SCOTUS want to give us?

Will you enjoy your smug righteousness while others suffer?

It's not my fault they sabotaged their own law. It was obvious from the contention during the law's debate that this would be the only chance they would get to make such a sweeping proposal. They had 60 votes in the Senate and a decisive majority in the House. The GOP was irrelevant and the newly-elected Obama was riding a wave of approval unlike any modern president has enjoyed.

They had one chance and they pissed it away.

I have nothing to apologize for. Go talk to the corporatists in DC if you want an explanation about what is to become of those who will be left holding the bag if this blows up.

I am for single payer too but pretending that Obama could have gotten it passed is ridiculous.

And I will not participate in your glee at seeing the ACA overturned and people suffering because of it.

I guess being wrong and copping-out about it aren't enough for some people. They have be nasty when reminded of the fact they were destined to be wrong.

I am a realist however and able to acknowledge the difficulties faced in trying to pass it. That they got anything passed was remarkable and losing those benefits will hurt many people. That is what I find nasty.

What I find nasty is claiming I take glee in it. That was uncalled for.

If someone proposes to build a bridge but others take note that the plans and materials are sub-standard and will never hold up under the stress of operation it would be vile to suggest that those warning of a collapse in any way "take glee" when the structure fails and people fall to their dooms.

"Well, it's the best bridge we could get at the time," doesn't mitigate the vileness of the insult.

Glad to here you aren't joyful that many will lose their access to any healthcare.

By the way, many of us in states that implemented it as perceived will retain our hard fought access.

Have a great day.

one passed the Senate. The tweaks could not overcome his joining of the Republican filibuster, so it was passed via reconciliation.

To claim Democrats could have gotten single payer in 2009/2010 is to claim you could have convinced Lieberman to vote for it. The "Senator from Aetna". Who knew he'd never win another election.

Tell me how you'd get him to pass single-payer. Then we can move on to Senator Ben Nelson. And so on down the list of conservative Democratic Senators.

at their disposal and a wave of public approval.



Maybe I'm just young and naïve but I thought when we voted for leaders they ought to display -- you know -- leadership. Had I known I was voting for an impotent, passive observer I would have stayed the hell home.

Enjoy you ACA -- while you can. It's the culmination of everything people worked for the last 2 generations.

And senators are quite proud of their independence.

Again, to pass single-payer in 2009/2010 you had to get Lieberman's vote. What, specifically, could Reid or Obama have done to get Lieberman to vote for it? You can't just whine about leadership if you can't even imagine a path they could have taken.

a state exchange.

decided against single payer when they had control of all 3 branches of government?

Do they control the Supreme Court?

advocates arrested at a hearing.

Kennedy
Roberts
Alito
Thomas
Scalia


That makes 5/9 by my count.

the three branches are.

Or maybe they knew they didn't have enough of a majority to get the deed done. Which is more likely?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Oh, and maybe a specially designed tank called "The Lieberman" that would be given exclusively to Israel.

Lieberman was offered cash for CT. He still said no.

Personal cash would run into the problem of being a crime. Though if he had accepted, it would have gotten him thrown out of the Senate.

I mean, that would only help the people of the state. No, cash for the things he cared about: Banks and Israel.

which then got several other Democratic senators upset.

themselves. I am sure that these same conservative justices would have found nothing to rule against with single payer or a national health service.

and do think single payer is the only real way to solve our health care problems...
but I am not for repealing obamacare.. and I fully understand that the ACAs impact was lessened by the SCOTUS ruling not requiring medicaid expansion..

what wing of the democratic party does that make me?

you're not for repealing it.. so that makes you different than they are.

ACA is a good start for single payer.. Social Security didn't start out so well, either.. but it was a good foundation.. at least we have something which is more than we ever had before. I just hope with all my heart that the SCOTUS 5 do not do away with it for the 7 million American who it is Helping now..

In my view that makes you on the sane wing

It will obviously have to be reworded. and corrected. Unfortunately, we have to deal the with Republicans now. But even they must know that it would be a huge, losing mistake, to take away insurance from people who need it.

Once they open it up for the wording fix, I'm sure the Republicans will try to add, and take away a whole lot more.

So instead we got a "comprise" of the biggest corporate giveaway in history.

What would you be saying right now if we would have won single payer and the GOP was right now going to take it away? Same thing I hope.

Does it really matter what we passed? We got it and now the assholes in Clown Congress are going to work with the SCOTUS to fuck it up...it helps people.

While it helps people, it also helps corporations, immensely.

We know Scalia and Thomas will vote to quash it simply because they are spiteful assholes. But, will corporatists Alito and Roberts vote to be spiteful assholes, or to continue to shovel taxpayer dollars to for-profit healthcare, and potentially give Democrats a club to wield* in 2016 for those thrown off coverage by the repeal?

And Libertarian Kennedy is most likely a vote to repeal, because people should be free to die horribly.


*Assumes Democrats grow spines and actually use this against Republicans, which based on recent history is laughable

I have to agree Kennedy and Alito are wildcards. We know Scalia and Thomas will want to gut it.

Yeah what the hell is up with our party not using all these facts against the GOP? I mean, I know the M$M is controlled by the GOP but damm...maybe the Dems could at least try and make a stink about people being thrown in the trash if they get sick?