Slick's britches at half mast....
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
ummm, if you'd read my words(or were capable of both reading and understanding plain English), the three sentence quote was from an article in Media Matters, and the link to the WSJ article was to the entire article. Still, the two together completely render any claim you've recently made about insurance premiums a complete joke(not that I didn't see it that way from the outset). Basically, you are trying to shill a fabricated doom and gloom scenario about which you, and your goofy right-wing sources, have no clue. Like I said, show a bit of maturity and patience, and get back in a few years. You will no doubt be eager to tell me how correct I was, but I'm not waiting for that one.....
-
HappyHappy
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
Like a broken recordcallmeslick wrote:ummm, if you'd read my words(or were capable of both reading and understanding plain English), the three sentence quote was from an article in Media Matters, and the link to the WSJ article was to the entire article. Still, the two together completely render any claim you've recently made about insurance premiums a complete joke(not that I didn't see it that way from the outset). Basically, you are trying to shill a fabricated doom and gloom scenario about which you, and your goofy right-wing sources, have no clue. Like I said, show a bit of maturity and patience, and get back in a few years. You will no doubt be eager to tell me how correct I was, but I'm not waiting for that one.....
Skip
Repeat,
skip
repeat
Give it up Commiesick
-
Pudfark
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
Boldcallmeslick wrote:ummm, if you'd read my words(or were capable of both reading and understanding plain English), the three sentence quote was from an article in Media Matters, and the link to the WSJ article was to the entire article. Still, the two together completely render any claim you've recently made about insurance premiums a complete joke(not that I didn't see it that way from the outset). Basically, you are trying to shill a fabricated doom and gloom scenario about which you, and your goofy right-wing sources, have no clue. Like I said, show a bit of maturity and patience, and get back in a few years. You will no doubt be eager to tell me how correct I was, but I'm not waiting for that one.....
Here's a dab of a reminder to ya... ObamaCare was to be up and running with six million paid/paying customers by March 31 and it ain't. Of the six million? Roughly 25% had to be young folks.... What are the verified accurate numbers? Only Obama nose/knows/no's. Why? If this experiment is so great? Running so well? Why no data/info? Other'n folks like you guessing, repeatedly and throwing out made up numbers? The "shilling and fabrication" is all coming out....of yer end.
"get back in a few years" " your goofy right-wing sources" Where's yer goofy left wing source with the verifiable "numbers"?Old Pudfark sez: " Socialist Progressives...can't count...don't count...won't account...why? "
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
whine, whine and whine some more.
Three more years. Get back to me. Save yourself the personal embarrassment for a few months, at least.
Three more years. Get back to me. Save yourself the personal embarrassment for a few months, at least.
-
HappyHappy
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
Like a broken record
Skip
Repeat,
skip
repeat
Give it up Commiesick
Skip
Repeat,
skip
repeat
Give it up Commiesick
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
-
Pudfark
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
I believe HH that this is what Slick means/is referring to.....
The shocking secret behind ObamaCare enrollment numbers
Barack Obama wants you to know he enrolled 7.5 million Americans through ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. What he doesn’t want you to know is how.
Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend.
If the courts put a stop to that unauthorized spending, a majority of Exchange enrollees would suddenly face the full cost of ObamaCare coverage, and enrollments would plummet.
The president is literally forcing taxpayers, without any legal authorization, to subsidize two out of every three Exchange enrollments.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, states have the option of establishing an Exchange themselves, or letting the federal government do it. The Act also authorizes subsidies that can require taxpayers to cover nearly the entire premium for Exchange plans. Among the eligibility criteria for those subsidies is a requirement that recipients enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.”
Such requirements are routine, and this one is and unequivocal. Countless federal programs offer subsidies only in states that agree to implement them. The PPACA’s legislative history is littered with Republican and Democratic proposals to offer various subsidies – including tax credits and Exchange subsidies – exclusively in states that establish Exchanges.
The eligibility rules for the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies specify nine times, without deviation, that recipients must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.” House Democrats even complained about this part of the Senate-passed PPACA before they themselves approved it, so they knew exactly what they were sending to the president’s desk.
Confounding supporters’ expectations, 34 states declined to establish Exchanges. Under the plain terms of federal law, subsidies are therefore available in the 16 Exchanges established by states, and not available in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government.
In 2011, however, the Obama administration unilaterally announced it would force taxpayers to subsidize insurance purchased through federal Exchanges as well. It cited no statutory authority for its decision, and has stubbornly refused to follow its own law despite immediate and sustained criticism.
In January of this year, the Obama administration began spending billions of dollars of unauthorized subsidies to induce Americans to enroll in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government. The president is literally forcing taxpayers, without any legal authorization, to subsidize two out of every three Exchange enrollments.
Fortunately, unlike other ways President Obama has unilaterally rewritten the health care law, this one faces credible court challenges. Under the PPACA’s many interrelated provisions, those subsidies trigger penalties against millions of employers and individual taxpayers, who have filed suit asking the courts to put a stop to both.
Last month, one of those lawsuits – Halbig v. Sebelius – went before a skeptical three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit.
After years of not articulating any statutory basis for its decision, the administration assured the court that the PPACA “makes clear that Congress expected the federal premium tax credits to be available on the federal exchange.”
How?
Through “a system of nested provisions that when you walk through them lead to the conclusion that the federal Exchange stands in the place of a state exchange.”
Oh.
No one disputes the purpose of a federal Exchange is to stand in the place of a state-established Exchange. The problem is the administration’s logical leap that an Exchange established by the federal government is somehow “established by the State.”
Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee considered the panel’s swing vote, somewhat comically forced the administration to admit the tautology that an Exchange established by the federal government is not “established by the State.” He then explained, “the key language is who establishes the Exchange, and you just keep coming back to well, the Secretary establishes it.”
The D.C. Circuit likely will issue a ruling sometime in the coming months, as will the 4th Circuit, which will hear oral arguments in King v. Sebelius on May 14, another challenge to the legality of the subsidies. Two similar challenges, filed by the attorneys general in Oklahoma (Pruitt v. Sebelius) and Indiana (Indiana v. IRS), await consideration in federal district courts.
A ruling for the plaintiffs would uphold part of ObamaCare the president is trying to repeal all by himself. And it would expose that the president is inducing millions of Americans to enroll in ObamaCare under false pretenses.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/ ... t-numbers/
Old Pudfark sez: " Sounds to me like a certain somebody "exchanged" their hat fer their butt.. "
The shocking secret behind ObamaCare enrollment numbers
Barack Obama wants you to know he enrolled 7.5 million Americans through ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. What he doesn’t want you to know is how.
Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend.
If the courts put a stop to that unauthorized spending, a majority of Exchange enrollees would suddenly face the full cost of ObamaCare coverage, and enrollments would plummet.
The president is literally forcing taxpayers, without any legal authorization, to subsidize two out of every three Exchange enrollments.
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, states have the option of establishing an Exchange themselves, or letting the federal government do it. The Act also authorizes subsidies that can require taxpayers to cover nearly the entire premium for Exchange plans. Among the eligibility criteria for those subsidies is a requirement that recipients enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.”
Such requirements are routine, and this one is and unequivocal. Countless federal programs offer subsidies only in states that agree to implement them. The PPACA’s legislative history is littered with Republican and Democratic proposals to offer various subsidies – including tax credits and Exchange subsidies – exclusively in states that establish Exchanges.
The eligibility rules for the PPACA’s Exchange subsidies specify nine times, without deviation, that recipients must enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.” House Democrats even complained about this part of the Senate-passed PPACA before they themselves approved it, so they knew exactly what they were sending to the president’s desk.
Confounding supporters’ expectations, 34 states declined to establish Exchanges. Under the plain terms of federal law, subsidies are therefore available in the 16 Exchanges established by states, and not available in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government.
In 2011, however, the Obama administration unilaterally announced it would force taxpayers to subsidize insurance purchased through federal Exchanges as well. It cited no statutory authority for its decision, and has stubbornly refused to follow its own law despite immediate and sustained criticism.
In January of this year, the Obama administration began spending billions of dollars of unauthorized subsidies to induce Americans to enroll in the 34 Exchanges established by the federal government. The president is literally forcing taxpayers, without any legal authorization, to subsidize two out of every three Exchange enrollments.
Fortunately, unlike other ways President Obama has unilaterally rewritten the health care law, this one faces credible court challenges. Under the PPACA’s many interrelated provisions, those subsidies trigger penalties against millions of employers and individual taxpayers, who have filed suit asking the courts to put a stop to both.
Last month, one of those lawsuits – Halbig v. Sebelius – went before a skeptical three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit.
After years of not articulating any statutory basis for its decision, the administration assured the court that the PPACA “makes clear that Congress expected the federal premium tax credits to be available on the federal exchange.”
How?
Through “a system of nested provisions that when you walk through them lead to the conclusion that the federal Exchange stands in the place of a state exchange.”
Oh.
No one disputes the purpose of a federal Exchange is to stand in the place of a state-established Exchange. The problem is the administration’s logical leap that an Exchange established by the federal government is somehow “established by the State.”
Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a George W. Bush appointee considered the panel’s swing vote, somewhat comically forced the administration to admit the tautology that an Exchange established by the federal government is not “established by the State.” He then explained, “the key language is who establishes the Exchange, and you just keep coming back to well, the Secretary establishes it.”
The D.C. Circuit likely will issue a ruling sometime in the coming months, as will the 4th Circuit, which will hear oral arguments in King v. Sebelius on May 14, another challenge to the legality of the subsidies. Two similar challenges, filed by the attorneys general in Oklahoma (Pruitt v. Sebelius) and Indiana (Indiana v. IRS), await consideration in federal district courts.
A ruling for the plaintiffs would uphold part of ObamaCare the president is trying to repeal all by himself. And it would expose that the president is inducing millions of Americans to enroll in ObamaCare under false pretenses.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/ ... t-numbers/
Old Pudfark sez: " Sounds to me like a certain somebody "exchanged" their hat fer their butt.. "
-
callmeslick
- Posts: 16473
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:02 pm
- Location: Fearing and loathing in Delaware and Virginia.
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
whine, whine, whine,
lie, lie, lie.
Day after day.....boring, pathetic and tedious.
lie, lie, lie.
Day after day.....boring, pathetic and tedious.
-
HappyHappy
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
You are finally catching on.callmeslick wrote:whine, whine, whine,
lie, lie, lie.
Day after day.....boring, pathetic and tedious.
Indeed you are.
HH
-
Pudfark
Re: Slick's britches at half mast....
callmeslick wrote:whine, whine, whine,
lie, lie, lie.
Day after day.....boring, pathetic and tedious.
That's one helluva "fart" in the world of "rebuttals"......comical and "assinine" in origin.... C'mon Slick....at least have some fun with yer whining/complaining...show some wit, instead of the nit....
