General Discussion

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)

54. I alerted on it. The use of the term "moron" is unacceptable.

Reply to geek tragedy (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 03:09 PM

Nov 2012

It is right up there with "retard". Your post is bullshit on many levels.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rant: who was the moron who drafted the ACA such that states can opt out automatically? [View all] geek tragedy Nov 2012 OP

They can't just opt out Drale Nov 2012 #1

No subsidies means that that people won't be able to afford the insurance offered through geek tragedy Nov 2012 #4

it doesn't matter if they can't be denied a product that they can't afford. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #6

The feds will run it instead - which is probably better n/t sammytko Nov 2012 #2

There will be nothing to run---the lack of subsidies means that no one will geek tragedy Nov 2012 #9

it won't be better if there are no subsidies to allow the poor to buy in. BlueMan Votes Nov 2012 #10

I don't think that was in the legislation... MANative Nov 2012 #3

No, the problem is that they explicitly limited subsidies to state-run exchanges. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #7

That was discussed here back when it was drafted. Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #5

This narrative is being pushed by the CATO Institute ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #8

Unfortunately, the language is pretty clear. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #11

Well ... 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #49

I would have thought this post at least warranted a response tkmorris Nov 2012 #61

Maybe he/she is on a bathroom break? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Nov 2012 #62

oh chill. everyone will get the same subsidies, everywhere. Schema Thing Nov 2012 #12

This isn't political bitching--it's a legal argument that the SCOTUS is going to buy. nt geek tragedy Nov 2012 #17

No, it's not. It's a glitch. The intent of the law is not going to be overturned Schema Thing Nov 2012 #19

Courts generally don't care if it's an error. Especially Republican judges. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #20

this claim has ZERO credibility. Schema Thing Nov 2012 #23

Judges care about intent if the language is unclear. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #33

So you are asserting as fact something that has only been theorized Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #24

You really think the Roberts court is going to give the admin a pass on this? geek tragedy Nov 2012 #28

They didn't buy the legal argument by everyone that ACA was totally unconstitutional. LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #29

Roberts did at first, and he backed down only because the shitstorm would be too big. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #32

That is an old article - here is one from two days ago sammytko Nov 2012 #13

That doesn't deal with the subsidy issue. nt geek tragedy Nov 2012 #15

ugh - the feds will pay that. sammytko Nov 2012 #18

Ugh, no. The law doesn't authorize them to. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #22

No it isn't. And you know better. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #25

ACA, Section 1401 only allows subsidies for people enrolled in exchanges established geek tragedy Nov 2012 #30

According to you and the Cato Institute. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #56

why would they opt out? brokechris Nov 2012 #14

Because they're Republicans and they want to screw poor people. nt geek tragedy Nov 2012 #16

The whole law Turbineguy Nov 2012 #21

a) morons is vile language. b) this is a bullshit post. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #26

Okay, tell us how this language is unclear: geek tragedy Nov 2012 #37

thank you sammytko Nov 2012 #44

quite the contrary, they specifically allowed the feds to set it up in case some states didn't do it unblock Nov 2012 #27

The problem is that they authorized subsidies ONLY for state-run exchanges. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #31

who is the moron that still uses the word 'moron'. grantcart Nov 2012 #34

The problem is that there are no subsidies for people in the federal exchanges. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #35

No the problem is that the Supreme Court said that you could not compel states to expand Medicaid grantcart Nov 2012 #51

Medicaid expansion is a separate issue from the tax credits offered geek tragedy Nov 2012 #52

This post was alerted. Jury voted 4-2 to retain ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #36

This got alerted? Oy. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #41

It is clear to me in context that you are well meaning but incorrect ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #45

I alerted on it. The use of the term "moron" is unacceptable. Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #54

Yeah, that term is totally never used here. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #55

Is "moronic" an okay term, or is that also unacceptable? hughee99 Nov 2012 #59

Here is a thorough explanation of why you are more than likely dead wrong about this. phleshdef Nov 2012 #38

That's a really weak argument, sorry to say. Two reaons geek tragedy Nov 2012 #42

It seems to be a much stronger argument than the one you are attempting to make. phleshdef Nov 2012 #46

Agency interpretations are accorded some deference geek tragedy Nov 2012 #50

U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, President Obama... Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #39

No, this was a simple screw up. Nobody was demanding that the federal exchanges geek tragedy Nov 2012 #43

Given the rushed nature of the legislation, errors and oversights were ProgressiveProfessor Nov 2012 #47

The IRS is remedying it via interpretation. geek tragedy Nov 2012 #48

Maybe this is making lemonade out of lemons... caraher Nov 2012 #40

i've been trying to get an answer on this for almost 2 weeks nashville_brook Nov 2012 #53

It is not moronic to set up a situation where red states, turn over Roselma Nov 2012 #57

The non profit government option mdohoney Nov 2012 #58

It Was Probably Necessary to Overcome Some Resistance to the ACA On the Road Nov 2012 #60