Where is the fucking Outrage Concerning the Supreme Court’s Decision ..

[busterbrown]

to hear a suit ( King Vs Burwell ) which intent is to destroy all aspects of the Affordable Healthcare Act..
Including the millions who now rely on the Expanded Medicaid Program . If the Court sides with these slime balls who have no other intent than destroying Obama’s Legacy, the probable result will be that 7.2 million will be w/o
insurance.. Thousands upon thousands of these pour souls are now going under life saving treatments which makes one wonder what their fate will be..

My problem is why the hell is the entire Democratic Political Party/Organization/Elected Officials, not reacting violently to this situation..fucking now? This is freaking serious shit and in my opinion we have to immediately
address this horrible almost treasonous attempt to destroy thousands upon thousands of American lives...

My God Mr. President... A statement should have been already been released vilifying this attempt by the leaders of a Right Wing Agenda which will be devastating to our country..

From The Huffington Post:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/opinion/law-in-the-raw.html

[elleng]

1. Here, for one place.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106667

May or may not sound sufficiently outraged.

[HockeyMom]

2. I personally have mixed feeling on this

I do agree that anyone who WANTS Health Insurance should have it, but there are others who could care less. I am one of those, who over decades sometimes had and sometimes didn't have health insurance. The majority of those times I never used it myself, even when I did have insurance, and many people would have been running to a doctor in a panic. I am from another generation and just plain don't feel the same about health care.

I aged into Medicare, which I do not use, just about the time of the ACA deadline. I think of it as the SC said just a tax. I probably would have just paid the fine myself if I was younger.

Personally, I feel this something people should be able to decide for themselves, but if they do want it, then government should help them to get it. I guess I just depart from the Party view on this one issue.

[busterbrown]

3. Believe me people who “could care less” are just ignorant to

what the horrible effects of no healthcare could mean... No one in their right mind is not frightened to hell
by loosing or not having healthcare... A trip to the emergency room w/o insurance could ruin one of these “could care less” people in a ny heartbeat.. I mean it could be financial disaster for the rest of their lives.

[enough]

5. HockeyMom, from what you're saying, I imagine you and I are about the same age.

Having been self-employed all my life (and my children's lives), I understand about sometimes having had health insurance and sometimes not having had it.

You say you have aged into Medicare, which you do not use. I also aged into Medicare five years ago and "have not used" it since then, in that I haven't had to go to any doctor during that time and don't take any prescription medication.

However, I have to say that I am extremely happy that my husband and I now have Medicare (he also has never "used" it.) The reason is that, given the reality of medical costs in this time and place, if either of us got sick or had an accident (much more likely, given the way we live) we are not now as concerned as we were that a medical problem could take away our only wealth, which is the land we have lived on for fifty years and the buildings we have personally built there. We know that Medicare itself cannot prevent this, so we pay a small amount each month for additional coverage. Compared to what we were paying, when we could afford it, for health insurance before Medicare, it is indeed a pittance.

I believe that everyone should have some sort of insurance which prevents catastrophic loss of everything they own and care about in case of a serious medical condition. Beyond that, I think a good civilization would make health care a right for everyone regardless of wealth, which doesn't look like a realistic goal for us proud Americans at the moment.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Who around here is NOT outraged?

I'm pissed off too and was quite shocked that they decided to already take the case given the DC Circuit Court overturning of the 3-Judge panel's decision and plans for an En Banc hearning though there is nothing, really, that we can do about it. The Supreme Court is, well, Supreme. I'm sure that PBO is very concerned about this as well- though I doubt that you'll hear him tongue-lashing SCOTUS over it. Hopefully, his SG puts together good arguments for the hearing and he and the Dems come up with some kind of contingency plan for the subsidies if SCOTUS decides to be "textual literalists".

[busterbrown]

6. You Know ... I don’t even want him to tongue lash anyone...

I just want him to get out front ant tell the American people what’s at stake..

Not a political tone... But an informative tone..With a bit of tude...

[jillan]

7. If not for the ACA I would not have health insurance. My employer does not offer it.

I am plenty outraged!!

Add this to the fact that the newly elected governor of Arizona ran on getting Obamacare out of our state.
Even that witch Brewer took advantage of it.

I don't know what I am going to do if they take it away. I am 58, not exactly the age to be without insurance.

[busterbrown]

8. late 50’s thru 65 is are horrible years to be w/o Insurance..

Our private plans increased 15-25% in incremental stages until 65.. It really sucks..

Please.. lets all pay attention closely to this situation.. And keep screaming to everyone...What’s at stake.

I’m on Medicare but my gal of 25yrs is on the expanded medicaid.. WTF is wrong with people..

[SmittynMo]

20. You're correct about the age group

I just hit 60 and unemployed. Finding work at this age is close to impossible. My wife is 62 and retired. We are part of the 7.2M people on the ACA. I, along with 7.2M people cannot afford 1300.00 a month for insurance. And it's bad enough I have to pay 600.00 for both of us. So, yes, I would not have insurance without the ACA.

[busterbrown]

21. Yep...$1200 a month is criminal...but thank god.

$600 is a least doable, but still stinks..

Where is the push back on the S.C. for taking this case on..
It was practically a typo for shit sakes.. The Intent was there..

[world wide wally]

9. The Supreme Court is just another cog in the Republican wheel that is steamrolling our county.

It has no claim to nobility, justice. fairness, or even intelligence in any way shape or form anymore.

[quadrature]

10. is it too much to ask, to get a few words correct?

for example, if you mean 'yes', write 'yes', not 'no' .

Having basic skills in using the English language,
would have saved a lot of trouble.

[quadrature]

12. the dispute in court is about goofed-up language in the PPACA

apparently, nobody read the disputed passage
concerning, subsidy money only
going through a state exchange.

[greymattermom]

14. Can't they rule that the federal exchanges should be subsidized?

That would get the Republican governors off the hook, get money into rural and urban hospitals, and make insurance more portable.

[busterbrown]

16. I think I read that if they proved intent..It would be an easy fix..n/t

[quadrature]

17. but that is what Congress should have written down in the first place,

but didn't.

what do you do ...NOW... when the
words are plain?

[busterbrown]

23. Prove Intent as I said before.. this could be fixed in a freaking second...

Do you think if Parties in this case were reverse, that the court would be taking this case on..
No its bullshit!!! And I find your comments strange...

[forthemiddle]

26. Except Gruber has been taped saying the opposite now

Part of the outrage of what Gruber has been saying is that he admits that the law was written in such a way that the subsidy was a "carrot" to get States to set up their own exchanges. So now, "intent" is in doubt.
Regardless if you believe Gruber was the "architect" or not, he is on tape disputing the intent of the subsidies. All the GOP has to do is play his words to the SC, and thats the end of it.

Here is the quote.
"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."

[busterbrown]

27. Nit picking..The fact is that the ACA is working and I’ll say this one more time..

If the Heritage Foundation wrote this law( as they didi in Mass.) and Republican’s were gleefully taking credit for it. Do you actually think the Court would be taking it on..?

Did you fail to read the part about Stevens perhaps redeeming himself for allowing it to pass the first time.

Are you trying to tell me that this is just not political bullshit at it’s worst..

[busterbrown]

15. My apologies ...I’m a little embarrassed on occasion by my grammar.. Just defensive

Wil delete..

By the way it is amazing how they screwed that up.. But nevertheless what turds they are to devastate so many because “apparently nobody read the disputed passage" Especially since the intent of having the Feds run the exchange was there,,

[greymattermom]

13. So how would this not apply to corporations too, since they are people?

Would it mean no government subsidies for corporations? Get the lawsuits ready.

[appalachiablue]

18. Right here. Cannot believe this case is being considered. The lives of the currently covered

would be tremendously changed, esp. people in life saving treatment as you write. News now of PBO in Asia, championing the carbon deal, and likely passage of Keystone, TPP and TTIP. Few to no Dem. reps. discussing the SCOTUS healthcare case. From what I've read the main hope is that increased revenue for insurance cos. through the new policies would be a deterrent. I pray.

[onenote]

19. I'm not outraged because it was neither unexpected nor inappropriate for the court to take the case

I hope that the Court decides it the right way, but to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that the decision to hear the case now was supported by more than just the right wing members. Around 40 - 45 percent of the cases that the Supreme Court takes are affirmed by the Court.

[gmb92]

22. Great article

and there's no rational reason for them to take the case. At least 4 justices chose to skip the lower courts because they know it would the case would fail. It's a blatant partisan power grab. The only question at this stage is how Roberts will vote.

Democrats should get ahead of this. If the Republicans SCOTUS hacks strip the subsidies from the fed exchange states, Republicans and mainstream media will quickly claim it's more proof the law is unconstitutional/illegal and should be thrown out, spin to save Congress and state Republican governors heat in failing to quickly fix it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. there is no outrage because we don't control the supreme court. its not like you

can call your local congressperson to change the mind of a SC justice. there is however a LOT of apprehension

[busterbrown]

25. You don’t thing the Scummy 5 justices wouldn't notice Occupy Supreme Court Protests if

they were all over the country?... There are what,? close to 7million who are in danger of loosing the coverage?

You don’t think that on on going peaceful protest of thousands in D.C. would not be noticed?

I’m telling you, if I had a loved one who is now having some sort of life Saving Treatment, due to the ACA and now that life saving treatment might be taken away, guaranteeing death.. Christ I’d be there in a second..

This is only one example. Our Dem leaders need to be all over the media explaining what a catastrophic type event this would lead to if the Supreme Court goes along with this Suit..

[Old Nick]

28. Outrage? BAH!