Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell , a case challenging the legality of the federal subsidy provision of the ACA, because rather than just having a robust legislative debate culminating in a law, and then moving on with their goddamned lives, Republicans have voted to repeal it 56 times since President Obama signed it in March 2010, unleashing the tyranny of private market health insurance on all of us. After today's oral arguments, the Supremes will hang out, have some drinks, braid each other's hair, and then issue a decision in June as to whether the ACA's federal subsidies are good to go in states using the federal insurance marketplace, or whether people in the states that declined to set up their own exchanges will suddenly, oops, no longer be eligible for federal subsidies. And then there will death spirals everywhere! Let's ACAsplore.
Actually olds pick shitty politicians who screw over young people. Olds tend to skew conservative, people tend to get that way as they age. Their priorities also change. Those old people aren't voting against their self intetest, they're voting against yours. Raise taxes to pay for education? Pfft. They're done with school and so are their children. If they have grandkids they probably live elsewhere. Try funding education in a place like AZ where all the retirees vote against it. That 40 year water and sewer plan? They don't Care, they'll be dead by then so why should they pay for it? Municipal WiFi or mass transit? Those are things that matter to young people, not old.
Those seniors elect politicians who do their bidding- small government so there's no new taxes for their fixed income. Most of them are not going to be pro choice because they come from a different era. Besides, they won't be having an abortion these days.
No, those olds vote for what is best for them, at the expense of what is best for young people. If those kids voted, gay marriage would have been legal everywhere years ago, so would pot . We'd have single payer decades ago. But they can't be bothered to put down the Xbox or the iPhone long enough to notice there's an election, let alone vote. So old people vote for politicians who will make life hell for young people because it keeps life better for them.
To all conservative believers in the free markets I bring good news! As it is a simple science fact that the markets know best, we need not parse the words of the SCOTUS justices to determine their likely ruling. We need only observe what happened to the stock prices of publicly traded companies what benefit from the ACA insurance subsidies. AMIRIGHT!!!!?
On a day when the Dow is down .49%, the S&P 500 is down .41%, and the Nasdaq is down .18%, large hospital systems are way up! Companies like Community Health Systems (CYH up 5.87% in today's trading), HCA Holdings (HCA up 6.14% in today's trading), and Tenet Healthcare (THC up 5.12% in today's trading) joined an amicus brief in support of the government's position saying they depend so much for revenue on sweet sweet subsidies granted to the poors what bought insurance on the federal exchange that they would have to close up shop in those red states without them. So now all you free marketeers will bow to the wisdom of the markets and agree that King et al will have to just deal with the fictional pain of having to buy insurance (if they are not VA or Medicare eligible) from the federal government exchange or pay their taxes if they don't.
Let me edumacate you. According to Wiktionary, "state" means "Any sovereign polity. A government.". If they had intended to exclude the feds, they should have said something like "any of the several states".
Too bad those ignorant Rethuglicans never consulted a dictionary. The whole case could be tossed if the right half of the supremes just read the definition.
Shakespeare had it right about the lawyers. Or this:Q: What do you call it when a cruise ship with 5000 lawyers sinks with no survivors?A: A good start.
Or this:Q: What do you call it when a man starts thinking with the head on top of his shoulders instead of the other one?A: Unusual.Q: When a woman does?A: Thinking outside the box.
There's also the small matter of "standing": if none of the four "plaintiffs" have been harmed by the law, there's no "case or controversy" for the court to resolve. And "I don't like how the gubmint spends my tax munniez" doesn't count. The teabagger plaintiffs don't have Obmacare now, and they won't have Obamacare if they "win", so "why the fuck are you even here?" is a fair question. (Maybe RBG will ask it, for the lulz.) The Supremes, however, are pretty good at ignoring that nicety when they really, really want to decide an issue, even if there is no such issue in the case.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, even Scalia called the Fed subsidy a "backup" for when states don't create exchanges . . . not that he'll hesitate to say the opposite, when his ideology requires it.
Justice Ginsburg... laid down some awesome language on statutory interpretation.
I just had a little robegasm, picturing The Notorious RBG channelling Samuel L. "Pulp Fiction" Jackson when Burwell gets argued: "ENGLISH, MOTHERF*CKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?"
It is all on Roberts. One hope is most of the companies involved (hospitals and insurance companies) do not want King to win. It feels weird siding with insurance companies, more use to hating them. Then again, hospitals also wanted the expansion. So it comes done to what one man has to say. Makes sense in a democracy.
Actually olds pick shitty politicians who screw over young people. Olds tend to skew conservative, people tend to get that way as they age. Their priorities also change. Those old people aren't voting against their self intetest, they're voting against yours. Raise taxes to pay for education? Pfft. They're done with school and so are their children. If they have grandkids they probably live elsewhere. Try funding education in a place like AZ where all the retirees vote against it. That 40 year water and sewer plan? They don't Care, they'll be dead by then so why should they pay for it? Municipal WiFi or mass transit? Those are things that matter to young people, not old.
Those seniors elect politicians who do their bidding- small government so there's no new taxes for their fixed income. Most of them are not going to be pro choice because they come from a different era. Besides, they won't be having an abortion these days.
No, those olds vote for what is best for them, at the expense of what is best for young people. If those kids voted, gay marriage would have been legal everywhere years ago, so would pot . We'd have single payer decades ago. But they can't be bothered to put down the Xbox or the iPhone long enough to notice there's an election, let alone vote. So old people vote for politicians who will make life hell for young people because it keeps life better for them.
To all conservative believers in the free markets I bring good news! As it is a simple science fact that the markets know best, we need not parse the words of the SCOTUS justices to determine their likely ruling. We need only observe what happened to the stock prices of publicly traded companies what benefit from the ACA insurance subsidies. AMIRIGHT!!!!?
On a day when the Dow is down .49%, the S&P 500 is down .41%, and the Nasdaq is down .18%, large hospital systems are way up! Companies like Community Health Systems (CYH up 5.87% in today's trading), HCA Holdings (HCA up 6.14% in today's trading), and Tenet Healthcare (THC up 5.12% in today's trading) joined an amicus brief in support of the government's position saying they depend so much for revenue on sweet sweet subsidies granted to the poors what bought insurance on the federal exchange that they would have to close up shop in those red states without them. So now all you free marketeers will bow to the wisdom of the markets and agree that King et al will have to just deal with the fictional pain of having to buy insurance (if they are not VA or Medicare eligible) from the federal government exchange or pay their taxes if they don't.
Hurray for the free market!
Let me edumacate you. According to Wiktionary, "state" means "Any sovereign polity. A government.". If they had intended to exclude the feds, they should have said something like "any of the several states".
Too bad those ignorant Rethuglicans never consulted a dictionary. The whole case could be tossed if the right half of the supremes just read the definition.
Shakespeare had it right about the lawyers. Or this:Q: What do you call it when a cruise ship with 5000 lawyers sinks with no survivors?A: A good start.
Or this:Q: What do you call it when a man starts thinking with the head on top of his shoulders instead of the other one?A: Unusual.Q: When a woman does?A: Thinking outside the box.
It's OK, the high has peaked.
He is the one who is nowbot on the internet begging, right?
They are consistent in their inconsistencies.
There's also the small matter of "standing": if none of the four "plaintiffs" have been harmed by the law, there's no "case or controversy" for the court to resolve. And "I don't like how the gubmint spends my tax munniez" doesn't count. The teabagger plaintiffs don't have Obmacare now, and they won't have Obamacare if they "win", so "why the fuck are you even here?" is a fair question. (Maybe RBG will ask it, for the lulz.) The Supremes, however, are pretty good at ignoring that nicety when they really, really want to decide an issue, even if there is no such issue in the case.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, even Scalia called the Fed subsidy a "backup" for when states don't create exchanges . . . not that he'll hesitate to say the opposite, when his ideology requires it.
Danged Obama kept me alive just so SCOTUS could kill me later.
They know not what they do?
Oddly enough, Stick-in-the-Eye is a preferred condition for righties like Sheriff Mack, than accepting the ACA.
Justice Ginsburg... laid down some awesome language on statutory interpretation.
I just had a little robegasm, picturing The Notorious RBG channelling Samuel L. "Pulp Fiction" Jackson when Burwell gets argued: "ENGLISH, MOTHERF*CKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT?"
"You may now kiss the bride?"
"Umm {name}, we need to talk?"
It is all on Roberts. One hope is most of the companies involved (hospitals and insurance companies) do not want King to win. It feels weird siding with insurance companies, more use to hating them. Then again, hospitals also wanted the expansion. So it comes done to what one man has to say. Makes sense in a democracy.
Jee, if only there were months of congressional debate to look at and see what the people who wrote the law intended the law to do.
Wait, what?
Not giving a shit about the people that put you in office, it's the republican way.