Question: If the Supreme Court rules Federal subsidies to individuals participating in ACA

[Samantha]

are illegal, would not Federal subsidies to corporations likewise be so? Citizens United told us corporations are people, too -- so what would be the difference?

Perhaps we need some confirmation of that. Let's ask this guy:

&feature=player_embedded


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/romney-corporations-are-people-my-friend-video


Sam

[BillZBubb]

1. As I understand it...

the wording of the ACA specifies that subsidies are available to those purchasing insurance through the state exchanges set up through the ACA. Only 17 states set up these exchanges.

The right wing is arguing that only people in the 17 states that set up these exchanges are entitled to subsidies, people in the states that did not aren't entitled to subsidies. A literal reading of the statute seems to support that. But, the intent was clearly to give anyone, anywhere who needed subsidies that benefit.

So, this fight has nothing to do with corporate subsidies granted in other legislation.

[Samantha]

5. Yes, I know

Intended to be written tongue-in-cheek

But your understanding is also my understanding. I puchased mine through the Maryland exchange. I have also heard if those other participants who purchased polcies on the Federal website lose their financial aid, it will cause a major problem since there won't be as many participants (which lowers the premiums).

I really think the Republicans are trying to strip US citizens of as many benefits as possible.

Thanks for posting on my thread.

Sam

[yeoman6987]

8. Considering not a single Republican voted to

Support ACA you are right. I don't think ACA will look exactly as is in two years. Some changes will be made, but ACA itself will survive.

[Nye Bevan]

2. This post shows embarrassing ignorance of what this case is all about.

You should spend 5 minutes familiarizing yourself with it.

[Samantha]

7. I am well acquainted with the issues at hand, Nye Bevan

It was written tongue-in-cheek.

[True Blue Door]

3. You seem to think The Five care about laws or self-consistency.

They don't. They will rule according to what they deem politically advantageous for Republicans.

The Supreme Court is under the control of fascist revolutionaries, two of whom (Bush appointees) have no legitimate authority.

[Fred Sanders]

4. The majority cons could punt, the minority liberals could go along, say there is a legal wording

problem, the intent is crystal clear in the rest of the legislation, leave it to Congress to fix, leave subsidies in place in the meantime, route of least damage, including their own fragile reputation?

Not my analysis, on another recent thread.

[True Blue Door]

6. Yes, there are several possibilities based on otherwise very simple agendas.

[Samantha]

9. I agree with everything you say but there is just one caveat

Sure they rule to the advantage of Republicans, but there is just one thing that might intervere: self-interest. Roberts has a pretty significant pre-existing condition and has complained publicly about the low pay of the Supreme Court Justices. I don't think he would want Obamacare to go away. Sure, maybe he doesn't get a subsidy because of his salary, but if the Plan went into oblivion, he would probably revert to paying extraordinary premiums, don't you think?

Sam