SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reuters reports that the US Supreme Court has ruled 6 - 3 in favor of the nationwide availability of tax subsidies that are crucial to the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law, handing a major victory to the President. It marked the second time in three years that the high court ruled against a major challenge to the law brought by conservatives seeking to gut it. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, who added that nationwide availability of the credits is required to "avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid." The ruling will come as a major relief to Obama as he seeks to ensure that his legacy legislative achievement is implemented effectively and survives political and legal attacks before he leaves office in January 2017.
Justice Antonin Scalia took the relatively rare step of reading a summary of his dissenting opinion from the bench. "We really should start calling the law SCOTUScare," said Scalia, referencing the court's earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of the law (SCOTUS is the acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States).
Original Submission
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gishzida on Thursday June 25 2015, @06:14PM
What we got in the ACA was what was "Allowed" by large corporate interests. This is your hard earned "Libertarian Ideals (tm)" in action!
It would have been much better if what had been enacted was true socialized medicine where the "profit motive" had been removed. The "Death Panels" advertized by Republicans, Tea Baggers, and Libertarians are now run by insurance companies instead of ethicists looking for reasonable quality of care and quality of life.
As for subsidies not working or being a failure the answer for me at least is that they work as described. When we enrolled we'd had a really bad year with total income being around $12K... so we got a "deal" of about $76 / mo. for my wife and I... but during the year I got old enough (59 1/2) to cash in some of my 401K savings... When tax time came around I had to "pay back" $1400 to the government since my income was too high for the subsidy received and we had to re-enroll in a "more expensive" plan (about $120 / mo.) .
You complain about what you have to pay for insurance when the truth is your corporate masters are the ones that are screwing you. They make their profit off of your hard work and blame someone else for why they can't pay you a decent wage and proper benefits. To make matters worse they refused to make medical care a public "utility". Why did they do that? So they can make a profit from people's medical issues, disease, and suffering. Don't believe the issue is about "choice". It is about profits. That is the only thing corporations care about.
Much as I dislike the ACA it is better than nothing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 26 2015, @04:54AM
This is your hard earned "Libertarian Ideals (tm)" in action!
This is quite true. I doubt there is a leftist idea out there, no matter how stupid, ill-conceived, or self-serving, that we can't cause to fail instantly merely by pointing out that it won't work. Our mental failwaves are simply too strong for you to resist.