You would think a bunch of political lawyers would know how to clearly express intent in the laws they write.
How the Case Against the ACA Subsidies Stacks Up
- Thread starter Tide1986
- Start date
-
Hi Guest, we are working on updating the site servers and software. We're also 'forcing' everyone to read and agree to our site privacy policy and terms of service. There are no significant changes to either of these but the terms page does clarify a few things that are mostly in the legalese. You can just click the checkbox for both and continue using the site as usual! We'll update you more on the site upgrades VERY soon! THANK YOU AS ALWAYS for supporting the site and being an active participant!
FWIW, mine has stayed the same and they tell me there will be no effect at least through 2014.
Last edited:
This is from one of my best friends from HS who posted this on FB a few weeks ago. He's an engineer down in the Houston, TX area and works for a global company. Again, I don't deny or confirm any of this information just passing it along.
What so many fail to realize (or admit) is the bill is fulfilling the intent with which it was written. It was never intended to improve or provide healthcare for anyone. It is a power grab by government of two of the largest industries in America, healthcare and healthcare insurance. It is also written to allow government intrusion in every facet of our lives and finances. It will bankrupt insurance companies and cause the quality of care to dwindle. Rationing will be mandatory and many services denied. It is not financially sustainable. Think it was shameful when the IRS denied tax exempt status to those who opposed Democrats politically? Just wait until they learn your political affiliations and which party you have been registered to vote with. You must be wondering why I would post these statements if I believed that? Well, I have been campaigning against the growing tyranny for years. If you haven't don't feel smug. The writer of the bill says he believes one should justify his worth to society to justify his cost to the system. The people who are pushing this legislation on the American people are not just political opponents, they are evil, pure and simple.
Last edited:
Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama adviser, tweeted earlier this week:
However, what most people covered under employer-sponsored plans may not realize is that the ACA's Cadillac Tax, which I have posted about previously, is forcing changes to many employer-sponsored plans. To avoid the 40% excise tax, employers are having to raise deductibles, increase premiums, and/or reduce benefits. This is likely what is impacting your friend's health insurance plan and, of course, is yet another lie by Obama and his administration.
Also, the changes required of insurance policies that are grandfathered in by the ACA (Obamacare debacle) make the cancellation necessary. Eventually everyone will be forced to change by the cost prohibitive regulations or the bankruptcy of insurance not run by government. Single payer was the goal all along.
At least we all have the consolation that Michelle Obama's college classmate got a $93 million no-bid contract.
That, at least, makes me feel better.
"Screwing the little guy, for his own good (and, coincidentally, for the benefit of well-connacted wealthy friends)."
That, at least, makes me feel better.
"Screwing the little guy, for his own good (and, coincidentally, for the benefit of well-connacted wealthy friends)."
They are not exempt. I didn't word that correctly. Sorry. The following link explains what I was trying to suggest: http://www.troutmansanders.com/compadvisory0618/
It defines grandfathered plans and what would cause a plan to lose that status.
Just curious, if you had to guess, who do you think actually writes the bulk of legislative language in this country?
Most of the legislation and regulations I've read appear to have been written by lawyers (not by legislators themselves).
I've wondered about that. The size of some of these bills would make Tolstoy jealous.
Also, I wonder who proof reads them afterwards.
The final passes, so to speak, are done by lawyers, but much of the legislative language we end up with was initially drafted by non-lawyers within the walls of private special interest groups.
So that begs the question: Is there really any legislative intent involved in the passage of laws anymore? If legislation is largely crafted by non-legislators and legislators generally don't know the details of the bills they are considering (reference Nancy Pelosi here), then the legal principle of "legislative intent" seems obsolete and plain reading of the text seems to be the most reliable principle of construction in my opinion.
By the way, how many lawyers are employed by the offices of legal counsel for the Senate and the House?
Last edited:
Yep. Lobbyists are to government programs what green bottle flies are to big steaming piles of crap. One just attracts the other.
Of course, the big government advocates among us claim only lobbyists are the problem and propose more government to deal with the problem. ................ The solution to the swarm of green bottle flies is to add more crap. ............. Wut?
FYI, I quoted this on my FB page. Hope you don't mind. I used "Bodhi" as the reference. LOVE IT!!!
Latest threads
-
-
-
Lawsuit seeks to allow top HS wide receiver to proft from NIL
- Started by Bamabuzzard
- Replies: 7
-
CFN: Tennessee vs Alabama Prediction: Who Will Smoke the Victory Cigar?- Started by crimsonaudio
- Replies: 7