PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Upholds ACA Subsidies


Davian93
06-25-2015, 09:57 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-obama-health-care-law-n375536

Vote was 6-3 in favor.

FUCK YOU GOP!!!!


Chief Roberts wrote the majority opinion and Scalia (of course) dissented with Thomas and Alito.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said people should start calling the law "SCOTUScare."

Way to be non-partisan, asshole

Kimon
06-25-2015, 10:07 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/obamacare-deadline/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-obama-health-care-law-n375536

Vote was 6-3 in favor.

FUCK YOU GOP!!!!


Chief Roberts wrote the majority opinion and Scalia (of course) dissented with Thomas and Alito.



Way to be non-partisan, asshole

I'm surprised this one actually survived, which is terrifying considering how ridiculous this challenge was. I still think that the government's case should have simply been that a reference to "the state" clearly means the federal govt to anyone who wasn't trying to find a petty and laughable pretense for attacking the law. How this vote went down really for me underscores just how worthy of contempt Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are. We're lucky I'm not president, as every day since the Citizens United ruling, I would have had to look in a mirror and remind myself that Robespierre started with good intentions too, as that would be the only thing that would stop me from declaring them all enemies of the state and arresting them on treason charges.

Davian93
06-25-2015, 10:15 AM
Scalia's dissent is actually pretty embarrassing...even for him.

He literally whines incoherently....best phrases used...

"Pure applesauce"

"SCOTUSCare"

I almost guarantee the latter will be taken up by Foxnews moving forward...and by the fringe Right.

Southpaw2012
06-25-2015, 10:46 AM
CJ Roberts did a fantastic job rewriting the law for the second time.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/06/25/statement-on-king-v-burwell/

Southpaw2012
06-25-2015, 10:47 AM
Scalia's dissent is actually pretty embarrassing...even for him.

He literally whines incoherently....best phrases used...

"Pure applesauce"

"SCOTUSCare"

I almost guarantee the latter will be taken up by Foxnews moving forward...and by the fringe Right.


Why? Because Scalia's dissent is based on the law written by the legislature and not what he WANTS it to mean like Roberts did?

Davian93
06-25-2015, 10:50 AM
Why? Because Scalia's dissent is based on the law written by the legislature and not what he WANTS it to mean like Roberts did?

No, his dissent is based on his partisan opinion that he doesn't like the ACA. The anger coming through in his words is pretty clear about that.

It is abundently clear to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the English language that the term "state" in this context meant "government entity" not a specific State.

At worst, it was a borderline typo. The intent and context in which it was used made it clear. This entire case was laughable to begin with and Roberts clearly understood that.

Good for him for not being a complete idiot...and sad that the 3 Stooges had to dissent due to their partisan beliefs.

Davian93
06-25-2015, 10:51 AM
CJ Roberts did a fantastic job rewriting the law for the second time.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/06/25/statement-on-king-v-burwell/

So the theory now is that Roberts is a liberal plant? He's one of the brightest legal minds in the country and his history of rulings is very conservative. If he's not on your side, you're probably wrong as a Conservative.

Davian93
06-25-2015, 10:54 AM
BTW, I'm shocked they actually upheld. I figured Kennedy and Roberts would both play dumb with the other 3 but I was completely mistaken. Good for them.

Southpaw2012
06-25-2015, 10:58 AM
So the theory now is that Roberts is a liberal plant? He's one of the brightest legal minds in the country and his history of rulings is very conservative. If he's not on your side, you're probably wrong as a Conservative.

I don't agree or disagree with someone based on them being conservative or liberal. CJ Roberts is brilliant as is Justice Ginsburg. I disagree with Ginsburg about 99% of the time, but that doesn't mean she's not brilliant. I agree with Roberts in a lot of cases, but he has butchered the Obamacare cases so bad that it's setting a horrible precedent (as if there wasn't one already set before). The Court's job isn't to write the law, it's to interpret. He has rewritten the law twice now for Obamacare, first time likely due to Obama persistence in calling out and threatening the Court leading up to the decision, which was sickening (though he has done that for this case as well). Personally, I do think there are some good things about Obamacare. Not many, but some. However, this was not the correct decision, and a dangerous one. I think that's where liberals, and some conservatives, get screwed up. The Court's job is to interpret the text. However, with cases such as King v. Burwell, they take the text and change it to what they think it should have meant or should mean, which is not good. If Congress butchers the law, it's on them. Of course, we all know that Congress hardly read over this law before signing it. Pelosi did say they should pass the bill before learning what's in it. What a joke.

Kimon
06-25-2015, 10:59 AM
So the theory now is that Roberts is a liberal plant? He's one of the brightest legal minds in the country and his history of rulings is very conservative. If he's not on your side, you're probably wrong as a Conservative.

I'd assume that most of the more pragmatic Republicans are at least quietly relieved by this ruling. Had they overturned the ACA it would have not only stolen health care coverage from millions of Americans, but it would have forced Congress to come up with a fix themselves right in the midst of the lead-up to the presidential election. Heck, at this point, it would also have greatly angered the health insurance industry and the AMA, both very much in the Republican corner. It would have been politically disastrous. But upheld, they can continue to use it simply as empty, and largely harmless, rhetoric.

Davian93
06-25-2015, 11:00 AM
He didn't rewrite, he interpreted. Here you go:

"Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to State Exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of 'applicable taxpayer' or in some other prominent manner," Roberts wrote. "In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."

That's interpretation, not rewriting. Rewriting would be making a decision that is a complete 180 from the intent of the law. That makes no sense but that is what Scalia thinks should have happened.

Southpaw2012
06-25-2015, 11:08 AM
Scalia was absolutely correct when he said, “words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State."

"Established by the State" is what the law says, not the law that Roberts interpreted.

Southpaw2012
06-25-2015, 11:09 AM
He didn't rewrite, he interpreted. Here you go:



That's interpretation, not rewriting. Rewriting would be making a decision that is a complete 180 from the intent of the law. That makes no sense but that is what Scalia thinks should have happened.

The holding is a rewrite of the law. They created what was not there based on what they think Congress meant.

Kimon
06-25-2015, 11:12 AM
Lost perhaps amidst the ruling on the ACA, they also made a ruling on a case trying to overturn the Fair Housing Act. It looks like Kennedy at least recognized the mistake made recently with their awful ruling that overturned the Voting Rights Act. So justice was defended, but just barely - a 5-4 decision. The four defenders of discrimination should be self-evident.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/25/supreme-court-housing-discrimination/26097319/

Kimon
06-25-2015, 11:14 AM
Scalia was absolutely correct when he said, “words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State."

"Established by the State" is what the law says, not the law that Roberts interpreted.

If I call Scalia an enemy of the state, is my meaning obvious? If the answer is yes, what does that say about his argument here?

Davian93
06-25-2015, 11:23 AM
If I call Scalia an enemy of the state, is my meaning obvious? If the answer is yes, what does that say about his argument here?

Exactly that.

State can mean a US State or the US Gov't and the drafters of the law clearly meant either is acceptable.

Kimon
06-25-2015, 11:31 AM
Exactly that.

State can mean a US State or the US Gov't and the drafters of the law clearly meant either is acceptable.

Scalia is just trying to muddy the waters by pretending that "a state" and "the state" are the same thing. If the law had said "a state" he would have had an argument. But the law did not say "a state", it said "the state". A state would be unlikely to refer to the federal government. The state would be unlikely to refer to an individual state, it could, but in context, much more naturally refers to the state - i.e. the federal government. He knows that. We all know that. Nonetheless he was willing to hold the nation hostage, and threaten chaos over what clearly is a dishonest stance. If that is not activism, what is?

Southpaw2012
06-25-2015, 02:41 PM
This is the United States. When it talks to the state, it's talking about the individual states. Here is a great analysis of today's decision.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/06/25/in-king-v-burwell-chief-justice-roberts-rewrites-the-ppaca-in-order-to-save-it-again/

Southpaw2012
06-25-2015, 04:07 PM
http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/06/25/king-v-burwell-federalist-society-podcast-with-jonathan-adler-and-david-rivkin/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

A fantastic analysis. Worth listening to because it explains everything.

Daekyras
06-25-2015, 04:19 PM
Scalia is just trying to muddy the waters by pretending that "a state" and "the state" are the same thing. If the law had said "a state" he would have had an argument. But the law did not say "a state", it said "the state". A state would be unlikely to refer to the federal government. The state would be unlikely to refer to an individual state, it could, but in context, much more naturally refers to the state - i.e. the federal government. He knows that. We all know that. Nonetheless he was willing to hold the nation hostage, and threaten chaos over what clearly is a dishonest stance. If that is not activism, what is?

Holy hell.

I love America. In Ireland there is a phrase which has tonnes of really negative connotations. "West Brit" is what we say which in the not so distant past was a horrible slur but has become more af a friendly jibe these days. I have never been called that but for years i have been called "East american" because I love the TV and the amazing sports and razzmatazz you bring to them. The food is pretty damn nice there too.

but reading this whole thing and the way people are steadfastly defending and arguing a point of view which is just plain wrong must be infuriating. I don't pretend to be an expert in any of this but come on kimon- "the state" refers to the federal government. Just ask Will Smith.

Southpaw2012
06-25-2015, 06:46 PM
By saying that "State" means Federal government is basically calling the Obama administration liars (which is true) because they pushed Obamacare through by saying that states would set up their own exchanges. With this decision, this will pretty much get rid of that.

Davian93
06-25-2015, 07:14 PM
By saying that "State" means Federal government is basically calling the Obama administration liars (which is true) because they pushed Obamacare through by saying that states would set up their own exchanges. With this decision, this will pretty much get rid of that.

And if those states didn't, the State would set them up...how is this even hard to understand? Every single person on earth who is honest about it knows the intent of the authors.


Speaking of intent and laws, it was never the intent of the Founders for the 2nd Amendment to mean anyone could own guns...that's why the "militia" part was put in there but thanks to people like Scalia deliberately ignoring that part of the "intent", we now have pretty much zero restrictions on any gun ownership as we're all "part of the militia. The Founding Fathers believed in an organized armed militia along the lines of the Minutemen, not Joe Citizen stockpiling a million guns with zero restriction. It was all part of the mythos of the Revolution that pretended that yeoman farmers rose up and defended their homes to kick out the hated Brits with zero outside help.

Either way, it's utterly clear that at least Roberts (a super conservative) understood it correctly so this is such a silly debate.

Davian93
06-25-2015, 07:19 PM
Definition of State


1. a nation, or a country
2. a region of a country that has its own government for some matters. A country that is divided into states is called a federal country


So you could technically say our State is made up of 50 separate States and several other dependent territories...or you could say The State shall set up exchanges in the states that don't set up their own...just saying.

Ivhon
06-25-2015, 07:21 PM
Interestingly, the majority opinion in the other case today was based on textual interpretation of the Fair Housing Act.

Guess who dissented?

Davian93
06-25-2015, 08:14 PM
Interestingly, the majority opinion in the other case today was based on textual interpretation of the Fair Housing Act.

Guess who dissented?

Thomas of course...because he's still bitter that he wasn't taken seriously after he graduated from Yale because people assumed (in his mind) that he only got in due to Affirmative Action. Luckily he hasn't allowed that pathetic issue to affect his entire life or anything.

The other 3 conservative justices also dissented in a different opinion.

GonzoTheGreat
06-26-2015, 03:44 AM
Does this mean that the Framers got it wrong when in Article II, Section 3, they spoke about "the State of the Union"?

Every US president who delivered such a speech was a traitor, apparently, he should have merely spoken about a State of the Union.

Terez
06-26-2015, 04:49 AM
I think now we are talking about a state of a different color.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 06:08 AM
I think now we are talking about a state of a different color.

Ironically, I think that word is one of the biggest issues most of his detractors have with Obama...

GonzoTheGreat
06-26-2015, 07:23 AM
One could make a good case that those who wrote the US Constitution never intended for someone of Obama's colour to be president.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 08:52 AM
And there have been amendments and laws put into place that allow a black man or woman to become president. So what you said doesn't count.

Terez
06-26-2015, 08:55 AM
He's talking about the intent of the founders, not modern reality. Obviously Obama is president.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 09:02 AM
He's talking about the intent of the founders, not modern reality. Obviously Obama is president.

The founders would say he's only 3/5 of a President.

Terez
06-26-2015, 09:20 AM
The founders would say he's only 3/5 of a President.
And his 3/5 would only add more weight to his master's vote.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 09:24 AM
And his 3/5 would only add more weight to his master's vote.

Goldman Sachs?

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 09:45 AM
He's talking about the intent of the founders, not modern reality. Obviously Obama is president.

The intent of the founders was to allow the American people to decide how they are to live. That's why they set up the government to allow amendments to be drafted and laws to be made.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 09:55 AM
The intent of the founders was to allow the American people to decide how they are to live. That's why they set up the government to allow amendments to be drafted and laws to be made.

And why they set up a Supreme Court to act as a 3rd branch of government and have authority to INTERPRET laws passed by Congress to be enforced by the Executive branch.

Judicial review has existed since the very earliest parts of our Republic...funny how you only like it when it goes your way. I didnt hear you complaining about judicial activism in DC v. Heller.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 09:56 AM
I think you all need to read the actual King v. Burwell opinion before commenting. Both the majority and the dissent, and then you will be able to understand why I'm disturbed.

As an aside, just remember that Grubber (sp?), the architect of Obamacare, said the provision "established by the State" had to do with states. Just saying..

Davian93
06-26-2015, 09:59 AM
I think you all need to read the actual King v. Burwell opinion before commenting. Both the majority and the dissent, and then you will be able to understand why I'm disturbed.

As an aside, just remember that Grubber (sp?), the architect of Obamacare, said the provision "established by the State" had to do with states. Just saying..

I've read both...just like I've read all the opinions on same sex marriage (the majority and all the various dissents).

Since when was Gruber a member of Congress? I seem to remember him being a technical consultant, not an elected official who introduced or voted on legislation.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 10:00 AM
The intent of the founders was to allow the American people to decide how they are to live. That's why they set up the government to allow amendments to be drafted and laws to be made.

Here you go...



The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Ozymandias
06-26-2015, 10:12 AM
Scalia was absolutely correct when he said, “words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State."

"Established by the State" is what the law says, not the law that Roberts interpreted.

Except "the State" and "a State" are obviously not the same thing. Justice Scalia interpreted "the State" to mean a single state, when that is not at all clearly the meaning.

The law was written ambiguously. "The State" could be a reference to one of the individual fifty state exchanges, or it could be a reference to the state as a whole. The majority absolutely made the right decision; Congress passed the law for a specific original purpose, to make sure everyone had access to the insurance exchanges; if the choice in interpreting an ambiguous phrase will either allow for the original interpretation of the law to hold true, or unravel the whole thing, it is self evident that the correct interpretation is the one that upholds the original meaning of the law.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 10:24 AM
Except "the State" and "a State" are obviously not the same thing. Justice Scalia interpreted "the State" to mean a single state, when that is not at all clearly the meaning.

The law was written ambiguously. "The State" could be a reference to one of the individual fifty state exchanges, or it could be a reference to the state as a whole. The majority absolutely made the right decision; Congress passed the law for a specific original purpose, to make sure everyone had access to the insurance exchanges; if the choice in interpreting an ambiguous phrase will either allow for the original interpretation of the law to hold true, or unravel the whole thing, it is self evident that the correct interpretation is the one that upholds the original meaning of the law.

Roberts used exactly the same logic on interpreting laws in his dissent against same sex marriage...but none on the Right will remember that. He's not changing laws, merely interpreting what he believes is the intent.

Some would say he's doing exactly what he's paid to do.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 10:47 AM
Roberts used exactly the same logic on interpreting laws in his dissent against same sex marriage...but none on the Right will remember that. He's not changing laws, merely interpreting what he believes is the intent.

Some would say he's doing exactly what he's paid to do.

"Let us not forget that the term "Exchange established by the State" appears twice in 36B and five more times n other parts of the Act that mention tax credits. What are the odds, do you think, that the same slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places?" -Scalia

"This court, however, has no free-floating power "to rescue Congress from its drafting errors."" -Scalia (in a passage slightly above what is quoted above, in response to Roberts saying that it was just "inartful drafting").

He is exactly right. Doesn't matter how you spin it, Roberts was off target and wasn't even close.

Southpaw2012
06-26-2015, 10:53 AM
I will never convince you guys because you disagree with the Founders that our government is a government of laws and not of men. You have the Ginsburg thinking that the law should be interpreted with what society wants, or what the justice wants, and not what the law is. It's a VERY dangerous idea, and one that is destroying the separation of powers, if that really truly exists anymore, and opens the door to more garbage such as this decision. We should make this decision because "it's the right thing to do" is not what the American system is designed to do. Go to Europe if that's how you want laws done. Our government is restrained by laws, but the Obama administration has clearly demonstrated that it doesn't apply to them and their mafia style organization, and now the Supreme Court has ruled that they make the laws, not Congress.

Davian93
06-26-2015, 11:19 AM
I will never convince you guys because you disagree with the Founders that our government is a government of laws and not of men. You have the Ginsburg thinking that the law should be interpreted with what society wants, or what the justice wants, and not what the law is. It's a VERY dangerous idea, and one that is destroying the separation of powers, if that really truly exists anymore, and opens the door to more garbage such as this decision. We should make this decision because "it's the right thing to do" is not what the American system is designed to do. Go to Europe if that's how you want laws done. Our government is restrained by laws, but the Obama administration has clearly demonstrated that it doesn't apply to them and their mafia style organization, and now the Supreme Court has ruled that they make the laws, not Congress.

well, 2/3 of SCOTUS disagrees with you...so I'd say you are probably the one who should move.

GonzoTheGreat
06-26-2015, 11:26 AM
"Let us not forget that the term "Exchange established by the State" appears twice in 36B and five more times n other parts of the Act that mention tax credits. What are the odds, do you think, that the same slip of the pen occurred in seven separate places?" -Scalia
Which specific state should have done this?

Only North Carolina? Only South Dakota?

For which specific state did the Congress of the entire USA make a law to the exclusion of all other states?

Ozymandias
06-26-2015, 11:37 AM
I will never convince you guys because you disagree with the Founders that our government is a government of laws and not of men. You have the Ginsburg thinking that the law should be interpreted with what society wants, or what the justice wants, and not what the law is. It's a VERY dangerous idea, and one that is destroying the separation of powers, if that really truly exists anymore, and opens the door to more garbage such as this decision. We should make this decision because "it's the right thing to do" is not what the American system is designed to do. Go to Europe if that's how you want laws done. Our government is restrained by laws, but the Obama administration has clearly demonstrated that it doesn't apply to them and their mafia style organization, and now the Supreme Court has ruled that they make the laws, not Congress.

Actually, SCOTUS was quite clear. The opinion stated that yes, there was ambiguity in the law, but that the federal government (the IRS) had cleared up that ambiguity and that the court was going along with their definition.

Once again, you are abjectly wrong. This isn't a matter of "convincing" anyone, much like the suit itself had absolutely nothing to do with a complaint by the plaintiffs as much as a chance for wealthy conservatives to fund a lawsuit meant to destroy a functioning achievement of a Democratic president.

Congress passed a law. I don't think it was particularly ambiguous, but there seems to be enough confusion that maybe it was. The IRS, a branch of government, interpreted that law, and did so in a manner that can convincingly be argued was consistent with the law's intent (even if you disagree).

The Court would have been reversing an interpretation of the law, not instituting its own, had they gone the route of the dissent. That is what makes the entire thing so unbelievable. Roberts and the majority were incredibly concise; the government had already interpreted the law, and they were refusing to override that interpretation. It is the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Scalia and his dissent were the ones who wanted to rewrite a previously established interpretation. There isn't a question about that.

Southpaw2012
06-29-2015, 01:38 PM
Great post by Ilya Shapiro

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/scalias-obamacare-argument-stronger-roberts

Ozymandias
06-29-2015, 03:08 PM
In which even HE admits his/Scalia's interpretation is, at best, "plausible".

But a funny thing happened on the way to utopia, and only 16 states (plus the District of Columbia) took that bargain, perhaps having been burned too many times already by the regulations that accompany any pots of “free” federal money. And so we were stuck with way too many people in the federal exchange, covering the states that didn’t opt in. Obamacare the reality didn’t accomplish Obamacare the dream. And the law as written said that subsidies for health insurance — in the form of tax credits — were to be given only to people in state exchanges, not the federal one.

That may not be the absolutely correct reading of the Affordable Care Act story. But it’s nothing if not plausible.

In other words, he based an entire article on the idea that there was only one possible reading of the text, and within his own article, had (at least) the honesty to admit that such a position was intellectually untenable.

Again, "the State" is an ambiguous term, and I'll bet that if I read through every opinion Scalia has written, in majority and in dissent, I will find him using the term "the State" in some context other than that of "solely individual states". If I go through the history of all federal legislation and all judiciial reviews, I bet I find it yet more often.

Moreover, and this cuts to the heart of Scalia's hypocritical position on interpreting law, it would be a judicial overreach if they interpreted the law in a manner contradictory to what the clear meaning of Congress was.

Roberts' opinion was quite clear that the single phrase on which the case rested was quite clear in context. One cannot read the law outside of the context it was written, or words truly have no meaning. I mean, if you are going to be a true ideologue and read the word "state" it actually doesn't mean government at all. Could be a noun, could be a verb. How to interpret that? So by definition, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are using context to make their case. They are merely using the narrowest possible definition of context so that their point has some grounding in reality. Were they to take those four words in the context of the whole law (and whenever someone says a case should "revolve around four words" then you know they're trying to pull a fast one) then the whole case falls apart.

Southpaw2012
07-02-2015, 01:28 PM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/251279503/King-v-Burwell-Brief-for-the-Cato-Institute-and-Prof-Josh-Blackman-as-Amici-Curiae-Supporting-the-Petitioners

Amicus Brief that was filed pre-Obamacare decision.

Ozymandias
07-07-2015, 01:02 PM
http://www.scribd.com/doc/251279503/King-v-Burwell-Brief-for-the-Cato-Institute-and-Prof-Josh-Blackman-as-Amici-Curiae-Supporting-the-Petitioners

Amicus Brief that was filed pre-Obamacare decision.

Dude... seriously? You think the institution that came into being as the Charles Koch Institute is decent amicus brief to cite? I have neither the techno-legal expertise nor time to read through the whole brief, but OF COURSE the Cato Institute is going to be against anything which even sniffs of government. That is literally their entire purpose.

I would be more convinced if Cato hadn't filed an amicus brief, because then it might actually be related to the law and not, you know, policy differences. E.g. the entire game you are trying to pin on the liberals on the Court, is being practiced in at least equal measure by the conservative/libertarian side. The Cato Institute has no opinion on the legality of the ACA, they just don't like it.

Also, I note you haven't bothered to address any of the corrections to your blatantly false and easily disprovable narratives. Nice.

Southpaw2012
08-05-2015, 07:47 AM
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/politics/obama-administration-urges-states-to-cut-health-insurers-requests-for-big-rate-increases.html?referrer=


But but but... Obama promised us this wouldn't happen!!! Right

GonzoTheGreat
08-05-2015, 08:46 AM
Obama doesn't control the free market, obviously. Maybe the Republicans shouldn't have opposed the single payer idea quite as vigorously as they did.