HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Ex-Nebraska Sen. Ben Nels...

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:07 PM

Ex-Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson at heart of court fight over federal health care act




THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
This artistís rendering shows Michael Carvin, lead attorney for the opponents of the health care law, addressing the justices on Wednesday. If the administration loses, millions of people nationwide could lose health coverage.


http://www.livewellnebraska.com/consumer/ex-nebraska-sen-ben-nelson-at-heart-of-court-fight/article_01f77b88-c287-11e4-8d3f-cfcdb04f2b32.html

Posted: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 9:56 am
By Joseph Morton / World-Herald Bureau

WASHINGTON ó Itís been two years since former Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska left Capitol Hill, but his name was invoked yet again Wednesday as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the latest challenge to President Barack Obamaís health care overhaul.

At the heart of the case is whether a phrase in the law was intended to restrict government subsidies only to health care exchanges established and run by states and not those that are federally run.

Defenders of the law say it would make no sense for Congress to limit subsidies only to state-based exchanges, but those challenging the law have suggested that it was written that way in order to placate Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.

Millions of people could be affected by the courtís decision.

FULL story at link.

6 replies, 610 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Ex-Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson at heart of court fight over federal health care act (Original post)
Omaha Steve Mar 2015 OP
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #1
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #4
TwilightGardener Mar 2015 #5
TheKentuckian Mar 2015 #6
TheNutcracker Mar 2015 #2
NoJusticeNoPeace Mar 2015 #3

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:10 PM

1. The Cornhusker Kickback lives on! Good old Helmet Head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:21 PM

4. Seems the bigger problem is his wanting to make damn sure there would be no national exchange

The efforts seem to have generated the inconsistencies being pressed here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:30 PM

5. He wanted to be the big important power broker. Hope he enjoys the fallout now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:34 PM

6. I'd not wager too much on him giving a shit even after consuming a whole pallet of exlax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:11 PM

2. Adding this cross post for true constitutional explanation:

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026316188

Dear SCOTUS: Health reforms intended for all under constitution

LTE in today's Tampa Bay Times.....

I was astounded when reading this editorial on the issue of King vs. Burwell. The sentence quoted by the Times to be the basis for the suit indicated that federal subsidies are provided to low-income people who buy private insurance on an exchange "established by the state".

The dictionary gives the first political definition of "state" as "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation." It is further defined as the "body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church)." Additionally, the definition includes "the operations or activities of a central civil government."

The document in question was written as a federal law. It is not a law passed by one or more individual states. The United States is a constitutional union of states, not a loose confederacy. A law of the national government is a law in all the states. The state referenced in the law is the state in the national sense of the word. This difference was thoroughly and thoughtfully worked out by the Founding Fathers. Any decision to the contrary could destroy the very basis of our CONSTITUTION.

Mxxx Axx Hxxxxx
Dunnellon, FL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:16 PM

3. A court observer and expert in this was on my show today and he said it will be 6-3

to uphold the law as is.

He said Roberts and Kennedy are going to do the right thing and he explained why.

Kennedy expressed serious constitutional concerns if the plaintiffs win based on states rights and Roberts was far too silent throughout the day for someone who would be CHANGING his mind as he would have to do.

Let's hope so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread