Posted on 04/30/2015 10:19:53 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Congressional Republicans are divided over how to respond to an approaching Supreme Court decision on President Barack Obama's health care law, even as growing numbers concede that their long-sought goal of repealing the statute will have to wait.
Should the plaintiffs prevail in the GOP-backed lawsuit, the justices could annul one of the law's backbones: federal subsidies helping around 7.7 million people afford health insurance in more than 30 states. Republicans broadly agree that Congress should react by temporarily replacing that aid, aware that abruptly ending it would anger millions of voters before the 2016 presidential and congressional elections.
Yet when it comes to choosing an overall response to a court ruling, GOP lawmakers have suggested at least five different proposals - so far. None has won consensus backing from Republicans.
The divisions underscore the challenge Republicans face between satisfying conservative supporters who want the law dismantled and providing help should millions lose their ability to afford coverage. But the sheer existence of the GOP proposals could help in court because it might suggest to the justices that despite Democrats' claims that eliminating the subsidies would spark health insurance chaos, Congress is already working on ways to avoid that.
Republicans say they remain uniformly intent on dismantling the 2010 law, but there's also no agreement on what the replacement should be. Increasingly, many acknowledge that as long as Obama remains in office, any repeal effort will mostly serve to tee up the issue for the 2016 elections.
"I think it needs to be part of the presidential campaign, and then the winner will be able to point to that as part of their mandate," said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn of Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
If the republican socialists replace it if the court overturns it, I will only vote for a real conservative for office or not at all.
Law says that policies must be purchased through a state exchange - seems like it wouldn't be annuling the law's backbone, it would simply be enforcing the existing law as written.
As for continuing those illegal subsidies, congress should answer: with what money? Slash budgets for non-essential pet projects? That'd be great! Simply continue the massive borrowing?
” If the republican socialists replace it if the court overturns it, I will only vote for a real conservative for office or not at all.”
This is what we ALL should have been doing for 20+ years. Now the Republican Corporatists control the House & Senate. THEY WANT AMNESTY & OBAMACARE. They will do nothing to stop it, indeed they have FUNDED both.
If I had a dolar for every person that said this stuff a year + out from an election and then voted for these cretins anyway I’d have an SSL 4K desk in my room right now. (Read that a couple hundred grand)
” (Read that a couple hundred grand)”
I guess a lowball estimate is the right thing to do here....
2/3rds of those on ‘bummer care got a nasty surprise with their tax returns this years - and average of $729 taken back out of their return - i.e. TAXES - to account for the ‘bribery’ subsidy they got last year.
It’s TAXES, JIM -
ergo ILLEGAL -
Where does it say that " millions lose their ability to afford coverage"?
ObamaCare has caused insurance rates to go up and coverage to go down. By repealing it we simply return to pre obamacare status.
With the most important factor being that the government will not have complete control of one sixth of our economy, the central planners in big government won't have their boot on the throat of every American.
These republicrats make me barf. Listen up pubies. We didn’t send you there to pay for other folks health insurance premiums or take them to raise. We have made $22 trillion in transfer payments to keep them from rioting and theuy still riot so let’s stop paying.
At the VERY LEAST FIX IT! My son’s monthly premiums, and he is healthy 31 year old single male, doesn’t smoke or drink, hasn’t been to doctor since 2005, went from $86 to $244 a month due to Obama Care and all they added was maternity, IUDs, birth control pills, pediatric care and he is a SINGLE MAN this is an INDIVIDUAL POLICY! It is ridiculous!
Why the hell are you concerned if the gibmedats are pissed? THEY ain’t gonna vote for you anyway.
Grow a pair and do what you were sent there to do!!
In the interest of brevity, I left out the vintage Pultec EQs, the Fairchild Compressors, the 96 channels of Burl AD/DA conversion, perhaps an extra 48ch Neve desk for variety and the various other implements of Audio extasy that would total a couple Mil and allow me to be as correct in my mixing decisions as we are in our political predictions. Which is to say, utterly, completely, absolutely, and of course...
1000.
Probably still lowball though. We are that good. Modest too.
;)
”… federal subsidies helping around 7.7 million people afford health insurance in more than 30 states."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
What Obama’s activist justices and Republicans RINOs don’t want citizens to know about Obamacare is the following. Previous generations of justices had clarified that most aspects of Obamacare are unconstitutional. This is evidenced by the excerpts below from Supreme Court case opinions.
Regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare insurance, please note the following. Since Obama’s activist justices are currently trying to find the best way to bluff that Obamacare insurance is constitutional, note the fourth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia. That excerpt clarifies that insurance policies are a simple contract, not commerce. And Congress’s Commerce Clause powers do not extend to regulating insurance policies, even if buyer and seller belong to different states.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
In fact, note that regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, corrupt justices and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (5.2) aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Getting back to 17A, the reason that 17A is a large part of the Obamacare problem is this imo. When low-information voters go home after voting for their favorite federal senators, they watch football, oblivious to the major problem that their corrupt senators are working in cahoots with the corrupt House to pass unconstitutional bills like the House appropriations bills that established Obamacare. But also consider the following.
The corrupt Senate is not finished with its dirty work after passing unconstitutional laws. This is because it then approves of activist justices who rule that the unconstitutonal laws that the Senate has helped the corrupt House to pass, Obamacare for example, are constitutional.
What a racket!
Lawless presidents aren’t the main problem with the country. The real problem is the lawless, Constitution-ignoring Senate imo.
Thomas Jefferson had warned about the Senate..
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear along with activist justices.
NO!
Any "extension" should be tied to permanently killing Obamacare. The right answer is to simply let it die due to the Supreme Court's ruling. If that fails, then they should pass an "extension" that (1) funds a final year of this horrible law, and (2) repeals either the entire law or all but keeping kids on their parents' policies to age 26 effective the end of that one year extension. That repeal of 98% of Obamacare must be included in any extension of Obamacare's illegal funding, if the republican elites are too wimpy to just let it die a natural death.
If they rescue Obamacare, they can dismiss my vote forever, along with many other conservatives. Not that it matters. If they rescue Obamacare, America will be dead within a very few years.
“The divisions underscore the challenge Republicans face between satisfying conservative supporters who want the law dismantled and providing help should millions lose their ability to afford coverage.”
Of course, “providing help” would completely undo the Supreme Court decision and save Obamacare. The GOP-E does NOT want to get rid of Obamacare.
Every Leftist lawyer and judge wannabee is hostile to the 10A.
There is zero chance a senate of the states would consent to the appointment of Leftist judges.
OTOH, the last hundred years proved that a popularly elected senate is unsuited by nature to enforce the 10A.
The 17A must go.
” Probably still lowball though. We are that good. Modest too.”
I’m gonna try that modesty thing one of these days.
Actually, some of them do. That's the problem.
I’ll defer to your knowledge: I just can’t quite imagine that enough vote for GOP-ers to make that much of a difference.
Our Modesty is something we should take great pride in. I find that nothing upsets right wing liberals more than displaying supreme confidence in ones modesty.
I see it as a healing balm. And as with all topical meds, one must massage it into the inflamed area. With great vigor, to achieve maximum benefit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.