Op-ed:
Three Issues Soon to be Decided...Part
2 of 3
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on CPR Worldwide Media
cprworldwidemedia.net
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance
markets, not to destroy them...if at all possible, we must interpret the
act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the
latter.”
- Chief Justice John Roberts
on the court's decision to uphold the ObamaCare subsidies
In part 1 of this 3 part series, I discussed the upcoming SCOTUS
decision on same-sex marriage, but yesterday we were blindsided by the
SCOTUS decision coming down when it did instead of next week...as we all
expected...on the anything but Affordable Care Act...aka ObamaCare.
Remember when in 2012 the High Court in a 5 to 4 vote narrowly upheld
the law and its hugely unpopular 'individual mandate'...well now it's
gone from bad to worse as the justices have ruled by a 6 to 3 vote that
ObamaCare...despite Roberts' words that the original sloppy work on the
part of Congress
”containing more than a few examples of inartful
drafting”...is constitutional and will stand, subsidies and all. And
why... because they see tax credits being allowed in all 50 states NOT
just in the 16 that have authorized their own online insurance
exchanges.
And just like in 2012, once again Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal
justices and sold us out...as did Justice Anthony Kennedy with only
Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas
dissented...with Roberts NOT only writing up the decision but NEVER even
asking one question during the length of the hearings. Guess this
Republican appointee turned out to be a full-fledged RINO...albeit one dressed
in a long black-robe and carrying a gavel.
And how the liberals led by Obama are now doing the happy-dance for by
upholding one of the central components of ObamaCare...backing the
subsidies...which are tax credits used by millions of Americans to buy
insurance...the SCOTUS will most probably NOT have to deal with anymore
legal challenges to ObamaCare for the remainder of Barack HUSSEIN Obama's term in
office leaving ObamaCare in place as his signature piece of legislation.
And to add insult to injury...to rub salt in our wounds...the Democrats
are still crying 'foul' that the challenge was even taken up by the High
Court in the first place, because, they claim, Republicans tried to
sabotage by any means possible a law designed to cover at least 30
million uninsured people...as they deliberately forget the
millions who lost their private insurance that they were happy with due
to ObamaCare.
And they also claim that their victory helps to avert a
collapse in state insurance markets. And that in and of itself is quite
untrue for if the ruling had come down against ObamaCare 6.4 million
people...65% of which receive federal health subsidies...out of the
roughly 10.2 million people who signed up for ObamaCare and paid
premiums through this past March...would probably be forced to drop out of
ObamaCare because of their 'tripling' and even in some instances
'quadrupling' premiums. Remember Obama's claiming that premiums would
drastically drop NOT rise and as always he lied...well those dropping
out would have gone back into the private health insurance sector or
done without health insurance for as long as they could NO matter that
they would have to pay a penalty.
Subsidies...the crux of the current ruling centered on a four-words
“established by the state”...four words that
stated that federal tax subsidies for health insurance purchases were
only available in insurance marketplaces called 'exchanges' that had
been set up by the states. But those who challenged the law (King v.
Burwell, 14-114) said that the words meant subsidies were NOT legally
available in the 34 states that never authorized their own exchanges,
thus forcing those folks to use the federal healthcare.gov
system...where they received an average subsidy of a mere $272 per
month...and if now those subsidies should indeed be invalidated.
In his brief Roberts said that other parts of the law
“suggested”
that
“established by the state” most assuredly includes the
federal exchange, and that the challenger's interpretation would have led
to results that Congress NEVER intended.
“Whether those credits are
available on federal exchanges is thus a question of deep ‘economic and
political significance’ that is central to this statutory scheme; had
Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would
have done so expressly,” Roberts said, alluding that to rule otherwise
would create insurance
“death spirals” with all but the sickest people
dropping their policies.
And he also added that the court
“must respect
the role of the legislature and take care not to undo what it has done,”
forgetting Nancy Pelosi's infamous words,
“You must pass the bill
before you can find out what's in the bill,” and that the above
mentioned
“sloppy” vote itself remains questionable in nature because it
was taken in the middle of the night with each and every Democrat
voting in favor of the 'Affordable Care Act' and NOT one single
Republican doing so.
However, even this ruling still allows individual states to opt out of
the law’s expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor...and that was
the part of ObamaCare that a vast number of people signed up for.
Twenty-two states to date have refused to expand Medicaid, reducing the
number of people eligible for subsidized insurance by almost 4 million,
according to recent studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
"The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an
'Exchange established by the State.' This Court, however, concludes that
this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well
as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available
everywhere... we should start calling this law SCOTUScare," said Justice
Antonin Scalia...a hero in my eyes...who rightfully called the vote
“purely
political” and wrote so in the court's dissenting opinion. And that
dissent included his also saying that
“the court majority could not read
the plain language before them”...ouch...thereby having six of the justices erroneously giving more
weight to the context of the entire law than to the plain language of
the specific section they should solely have ruled on.
And so the SCOTUS...led by Chief Justice Roberts who said,
“In a
democracy, the power to make law rests with those chosen by the
people...our role is more confined—’to say what the law is.'” basically
ruled that the intent of Congress...that the intent of government...was
clear enough in their eyes to override contradictory and questionable
language in the law itself, and that by this ruling avoided was the daunting
task of negotiating with Republicans a fix to the law or having the
'Affordable Care Act'...ObamaCare...ultimately crash and burn.
And crash and burn would have been preferable to having to wait until
2016 to win back the White House for the chance to ring the death knell
for the monstrosity known as ObamaCare...something so few wanted but
something that sadly, we are all still stuck with for now. And as Obama
gloats and shows we Conservatives his vile and evil smirk once
again...we most assuredly know that the only way to get rid of ObamaCare
once and for all is that we must...I repeat must...all unite behind
whomever finally gets the Republican nod...that we must put the social
issues on the back burner for now...and prevent through the ballot box any
Democrat from ascending to the presidency...period.
Despite Hillary Clinton saying that she turned over all her work-related emails to
the State Department, officials over there said they just received a
few leftover communications dealing with Libya, according to the New York Times. To make matters a bit more awkward, the emails relate to longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, who was part of a secret intelligence ring that
was feeding Mrs. Clinton unsubstantiated information on the ground
conditions in Libya. Initially, there were no indications that Mrs.
Clinton even looked or read at the emails, but it was eventually
established that not only did she read some of them, she forwarded a few to a State Department staffer.
Remember when in 2012 the High Court in a 5 to 4 vote narrowly upheld
the law and its hugely unpopular 'individual mandate'...well now it's
gone from bad to worse as the justices have ruled by a 6 to 3 vote that
ObamaCare...despite Roberts' words that the original sloppy work on the
part of Congress ”containing more than a few examples of inartful
drafting”...is constitutional and will stand, subsidies and all. And
why... because they see tax credits being allowed in all 50 states NOT
just in the 16 that have authorized their own online insurance
exchanges.
And how the liberals led by Obama are now doing the happy-dance for by
upholding one of the central components of ObamaCare...backing the
subsidies...which are tax credits used by millions of Americans to buy
insurance...the SCOTUS will most probably NOT have to deal with anymore
legal challenges to ObamaCare for the remainder of Barack HUSSEIN Obama's term in
office leaving ObamaCare in place as his signature piece of legislation.
And they also claim that their victory helps to avert a
collapse in state insurance markets. And that in and of itself is quite
untrue for if the ruling had come down against ObamaCare 6.4 million
people...65% of which receive federal health subsidies...out of the
roughly 10.2 million people who signed up for ObamaCare and paid
premiums through this past March...would probably be forced to drop out of
ObamaCare because of their 'tripling' and even in some instances
'quadrupling' premiums. Remember Obama's claiming that premiums would
drastically drop NOT rise and as always he lied...well those dropping
out would have gone back into the private health insurance sector or
done without health insurance for as long as they could NO matter that
they would have to pay a penalty.
In his brief Roberts said that other parts of the law “suggested”
that “established by the state” most assuredly includes the
federal exchange, and that the challenger's interpretation would have led
to results that Congress NEVER intended. 
"The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an
'Exchange established by the State.' This Court, however, concludes that
this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well
as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available
everywhere... we should start calling this law SCOTUScare," said Justice
Antonin Scalia...a hero in my eyes...who rightfully called the vote “purely
political” and wrote so in the court's dissenting opinion. And that
dissent included his also saying that “the court majority could not read
the plain language before them”...ouch...thereby having six of the justices erroneously giving more
weight to the context of the entire law than to the plain language of
the specific section they should solely have ruled on.
