Obamacare

Law, Not Policy, Should Guide Supreme Court in Obamacare Subsidies Case

|

Whitehouse.gov

For months now, the Obama administration has been playing a coy game with the latest Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare, refusing to say what kind of plans they are making in the event that the High Court rules against them.

The issue, which the court will hear on Wednesday of this week, is whether the administration's decision, through an Internal Revenue Service rule, to provide subsidies for insurance purchased through the law's federally run exchanges is allowed under the text of the law, which says that subsidies are availably only in exchanges established by a state. If the court decides against the administration, subsidies for several million individuals would quickly be cut off absent any legislative follow-up.

Last week, the administration seemed to go a step further, suggesting that they have no plans at all. "We know of no administrative actions that could, and therefore we have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our healthcare system that would be caused by an adverse decision," said Health and Human Service Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell in a letter to Congress.

The language here is slippery. It's not that the administration has no backup plans whatsoever. It's that the administration claims to have no plans that would fully reverse the result of a court decision for the challengers. Surely the administration has prepared in great detail for an adverse ruling—one Republican legislator suggested at a hearing last week that the White House has put together a 100-page dossier of potential responses—although what, exactly, the White House would do remains unclear.

But the primary point of the letter wasn't to clarify what the administration would or wouldn't do in the event of an adverse ruling. Instead, it was to highlight, again, the disruption that one would cause—and perhaps, in the process, make the court ever so slightly more reluctant to rule against the administration.

The administration, in other words, wants the Court to believe that ruling for the challengers would be maximally painful and disruptive.

Republicans in Congress, in turn, are playing their own version of the same game. GOP leaders have indicated that various groups on the Hill are working on contingency plans and Obamacare alternatives. One plan, an update to an existing proposal by a trio of Republican senators, has already been released. Various other ideas about what to do in the event of a ruling for the challengers have been floated by legislators and influential policy experts on the right. And today, in The Washington Post, three GOP senators—Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, and John Barasso—write that "Republicans have a plan to create a bridge away from Obamacare."

Their plan would "provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period," in order to minimize the disruption, and it would allow for some federalist flexibility, giving "states the freedom and flexibility to create better, more competitive health insurance markets offering more options and different choices."

As outlined in the Post, the plan leaves lots of questions: What sort of financial assistance would be provided, and for how long? What sorts of flexibility would states have, and under what legal authority? And are there enough votes in the House and the Senate to actually pass something—anything—that resembles what the trio of senators describe?

To the last question, the senators write that "we have had many discussions with our Senate and House Republican colleagues on this issue, and there is a great deal of consensus on how to proceed."

It's possible that the House and Senate could unite on a plan relatively quickly. In an interview with Bloomberg News last Friday, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) talked about the need for Republicans to create a "bridge out of Obamacare" if the court sided with the challengers. The use of the same descriptive language suggests that, if nothing else, parts of the House and the Senate are on the same page when it comes to messaging.

But as last Friday's chaotic House vote on Department of Homeland Security funding suggests, it's hard to know whether Republicans could really get anything like what the three senators describe to pass. As Ezra Klein, who also raised some of the same questions about the GOP trio's plan, argues, it's just as likely that Republicans would not be able to agree on any fallback at all. Certainly, the history suggests that it would be very hard for Republicans to unite around any health care plan; years of promises to repeal and replace Obamacare have produced a number of proposals, but little consensus. Mostly they have demonstrated how difficult consensus is to achieve.  

But consensus isn't really the goal here. Instead, the Republicans are playing a strategy that is the reverse of the one employed by the White House: They want to convince the court that the fallout from a ruling for the challengers would not be too great, because the GOP has a mitigation strategy at the ready.

What this messaging tug-of-war leaves us with, then, is an odd dynamic in which the administration insists it has no contingency plan, even though it (likely) does, and Republicans in Congress insist they have a backup, even though they don't.

It is understandable that both sides would take this approach; after all, as Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett has argued, the Supreme Court is more likely to rule against the administration if Republicans have some alternative in place. By the same token, the High Court is more likely to rule for the administration if there is no contingency waiting in the wings. (And to the extent that it matters, I think Republicans have at least a somewhat better argument; they don't yet have a plan, but they are at least working on plans, while the administration is absurdly attempting to imply that it has no playbook should it lose.) 

But even though this approach is understandable, and perhaps even inevitable, it is not ideal.

The question before the court isn't whether a ruling against the administration would be disruptive. It's whether the administration's actions are authorized by the statute. To the extent that a ruling against the administration would be disruptive, it would only be because the Supreme Court decided that the administration exceeded its authority in the first place. The law either authorizes the subsidies or it doesn't—and if it doesn't the subsidies should not have been granted in the first place. Neither the scale of the disruption nor the readiness of some alternative render the administration's actions more or less legal.

Despite the efforts of both sides to influence the court, this isn't really controversial. What matters is what the law says. Indeed, sometimes disruption is required by the law, and when that happens it doesn't mean the law should be tossed aside. It's worth looking back a few weeks to the administration's announcement that it would be cutting off coverage through Obamacare for 200,000 people who failed to verify their legal status in the United States. This was, it seems reasonable to assume, tremendously disruptive for a fairly large number of people. It was also required by law.

Obviously the administration's position is that, in this case, federal exchange subsidies are allowed under the law. But this is the core of the dispute: What is authorized by the law, and what isn't? Policymakers in Congress can and should consider the policy consequences of a ruling against the administration, but the Supreme Court should be concerned with the law and its limits, regardless of the consequences. 

NEXT: Good Samaritans Warned: Stop Giving Away Free Things or Face $1,000 Fine

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What is there to talk about here?

    Here’s what’s going to happen. We can speculate all we like, won’t change anything.

    4 – 4 split along ideological lines, and Mr. Penaltax twists logic into something rivaling quantum weirdness and the subsidies are upheld.

    1. Yep. The Court has become a rubber stamp for Congress, even when Congressional intent was demonstrably the opposite of what they later claimed (which is overwhelmingly true here, thank you Mr. Gruber).

    2. Possibly this:

      The subsidies are still available as a tax credit. You just can’t get them paid in advnace directly to the insurance company. You have to file for the tax credit when you file your return.

      Rationale: It would violate some sort of provision of the law to make tax credits available only to resident of certain states.

      1. This is like if you work for a State institution in N.H. but live in ME. The State of N.H. will not take out ME. income tax out of your paycheck, leaving you to pay it all at tax time. Big pain in the ass.

        1. I thought LePage was going to do away with the income tax.

          1. I thought LePage was going to do away with the income tax.

            (laughing) Youy’re too fucking extreme for AYN RAND!!!

            “Voluntary taxation will be the last step, not the first step toward a free society”

            “Any program of voluntary government financing has to be regarded as a goal for a distant future. What the advocates of a fully free society have to know, at present, is only the principle by which that goal can be achieved.”

            Even Rand knew that first we must change the culture.

            Except for the dumbfuck Tribal Libs who think they’ll be running a military dick-tatorship!

            1. Appeal to Authority

              The Governor of the State of Maine (Paul LePage) has made statements that he wants to do away with income taxes. This is a germane response to JPyrate’s post.

              Unrelated, I looked you up on the MENSA directory and didn’t find you.

              1. The Governor of the State of Maine (Paul LePage) has made statements that he wants to do away with income taxes.

                Which is too extreme for Ayn Rand

                1. I use Ayn Rand’s texts as religious instructions as much as I use the Bible. Ergo I don’t really care what her position on taxes may or may not be.

                  Don’t get too excited though about us sunsetting part of the coercive system since we would still have sales and property taxes.

                  In addition to disliking him over eliminating taxes, I think you’d also be upset to learn that he was a Ron Paul state delegate that walked out of the national convention after Romney’s lawyers used the RNC to force Maine to split its delegates (even though we are a winner takes all state). He also told Obama to kiss his ass and I know your disdain for epithets – so likely a strike three.

                  You told me a couple weeks ago that you were in Mensa. I looked you up and couldn’t find you under your last name. I also looked up all the “last name begins with H” people in Idaho and I didn’t find you.

                  1. Ergo I don’t really care what her position on taxes may or may not be.

                    All she said was that only crazy people — and dictators — believe we can repeal taxes, before a voting majority of people already supports the idea. That’s how a free society works! (gasp)

                    One more time: As surveyed by Cato in 2006, the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertariansso even libertarians know you people are the biggest threat to liberty. You, Stalin. Mao, Pol Pot … all your fellow travelers.

                    http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

                    Near the end, boldface section, “How Libertarians See Themselves”

                    Real libertarians never use intimidation.

                    1. Irrelevant Authority. You’re not the “keeper of the brand.”

                      The irony here is that our first interaction was you attacking me as being Christian. So (1) you were engaging in what you profess to disdain and (2) you were wrong in your assumption that I am Christian. You got it wrong and instead of accepting that ypu have created this strange dialogue with yourself where you apply things to me that are not true.

                      I’m glad I am in such good company. Just to revisit, you are not for eliminating the mandatory tax system, correct? I mean, if ot went away how would people know how much smarter you are than them if your 9-9-.9 plan isn’t implemented. Screw coercion, this is serious business.

                    2. Irrelevant Authority. You’re not the “keeper of the brand.”

                      Do we believe Cato and Ayn Rand, or Chumby?

                      Rand:

                      “Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society – the last, not the first, reform to advocate. … It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today.”

                      In language dumbed down for RonPaultards:
                      1) The firsr step to a free society is … educate the voters
                      2) The second step is reduce government to the minimum necessary.
                      3) Final, voluntary taxation.

                      Still waiting for you to tell us why we don’t have to cut spending, and how we can cut spending without the support of the people in a free society?

                      This is how Ron Paul had destroyed the libertarian movement, waving his arms in that whiny voiuce saying we can repeal the income tax and run the federal government on FICA taxes. All it gets us is more Chumbys.

                      Does the path to liberty run through Chumby … or the 91% of libertarians who comprise 53% of all Americans?

                    3. So you support coercive (mandatory) taxes?

                      That is incongruent with the NAP. But then folks don’t get to see how smart Mike is with his 9 – 9 – .9 plan!

                    4. So you support coercive (mandatory) taxes?

                      Boldface in original

                      Still waiting for you to tell us why we don’t have to cut spending, and how we can cut spending without the support of the people in a free society?

                    5. As a non-Christian Mensan that subscribes to the NAP, I’m not interested in being forced to pay for things I do not use.

                      In regard to your question, I’d rather let them figure out how to proceed. I’m not interested in trying to be a Top Man statist and better utilize (or perhaps just utilize differently) the coerced funds. If they end up with less that they will need to cut spending.

                    6. MORE eviodence of dumbfuckery in the Ron Paul cult!

                      When asked: “Still waiting for you to tell us why we don’t have to cut spending, and how we can cut spending without the support of the people in a free society?”

                      In regard to your question, I’d rather let them figure out how to proceed. I’m not interested in trying to be a Top Man statist and better utilize (or perhaps just utilize differently) the coerced funds.

                      Umm he says — read it — only a Top Man statist would bother with any plans or policies to reduce spending. Only “statists” don’t demand immediate repeal of all taxes, BEFORE cutting spending. Now the ultimate dumbfuckery:

                      If they end up with less that they will need to cut spending.

                      (snicker) Is that how we got an $18 trillion debt on the balance sheet, plus over $100 trillion in never-funded liabilities?

                      Thanks for finally answering, and proving my point. These are the dipwads who squeal with delight when Ron Paul says to repeal the income tax and run the federal government on FICA taxes.

                      Yet more proof of why the libertrian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

                    7. Or they can continue to borrow and spend until the currency becomes too devalued to serve any purpose. Unlike you, I’m not interested in maintaining a failed system. Especially not through coercion. Did Matlock load his depends or not realize that?

                    8. So you are not in Mensa. I was surprsied when you said you were but not so surprised now. This is one tribe in which you can rest assured that I am a member.

                    9. Well, Mensan genious, I’m still waiting for you to tell us how we can repeal taxes without first cutting spending, and how we can cut spending without first being elected by the people … in a free society?

                      Also, Mensan genius, how can you RonPaultards have been suckered into believing we can repeal the income tax and run the country on FICA taxes?

                    10. The reduction/elimination of taxes can occur simultaneously with the cutting of spending. Not dissimilar to how a business or household needs to adjust its budget when income drops.

                      But if we did that you wouldn’t be able to show the coubtry how smart you are. Top Men like you are needed, right?

                    11. MORE RonPaultards!!

                      The reduction/elimination of taxes can occur simultaneously with the cutting of spending.

                      Ummm, you forgot how we get elected to do that … when 91% of even libertarians think you’re crazy, along with Ayn Rand. So ou donlt even have the libertarian vote!

                      Not dissimilar to how a business or household needs to adjust its budget when income drops.

                      (OMG) Businesses and households can’t print money! RonPaultards in action.

                      But if we did that you wouldn’t be able to show the country how smart you are. Top Men like you are needed, right?

                      One more time for the mentally retarded, In this order
                      1) Educate the people.
                      2) Allow time for all the private functions and charities to rebuild, that no longer exist.
                      3) Begin with tax CREDITS for routing your dollars back toward the private sector.
                      4) Then keep going until the taxation can be voluntary.

                      The Ron Paul cult gets it ll backwards, and we wind up with more and more Chumby’s in the movement. … as stupiid as shown here …. return to private charities which no longer exist., … or you’re a statist. (snicker)

                    12. I’m not a statist so I’m not too concerned if the value of the decreases because tax revenue has been reduced or eliminated (and more dollar bills are printed to make up the difference).

                      Do you think the thirteen colonies should have revolted or do you think they should have worked with King George to educate the people, allow time for new institutions to develop, and then *poof* voluntaryism to occur?

  2. The Nazgul’s March/Theme

    Since we are talking about the Supreme Court. I think this is the music that should be played whenever they dodder into view.

    1. How about the Liberty March?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Dd0EaEbqg

      Always makes me think of something else… thanks to the Britcoms.

  3. http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon….._guts.html

    On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will finally hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the conservative lawsuit designed to cripple Obamacare by cutting off subsidies to millions of Americans who have come to rely on them for purchasing health insurance.

    Thank god that web journalists in America can maintain unbiased positions as they report on the top news of the day.

    1. Does the lawsuit attempt to kill puppies as well?

      1. I’m not sure. I didn’t make it past the opening sentence.

        1. I am sure the guy at slate thinks it does. What a fucking hack.

      2. See what I’m talking about, John?

        It’s a “conservative” lawsuit. It’s been “designed” to “cut off subsidies to millions of Americans”.

        That’s why winning would work in the D’s favor.
        Which is why they WILL win, because the D’s WANT this battle, and I am sure they have instructed the liberal justices accordingly.

        Which is why the administration is keeping it’s cards so close and not making any plans (that we can see). Because they want to lose the case, so they can use it as leverage to force the Republicans to enact a favorable (to them) set of “fixes”.

        1. It won’t happen. This is not the same as shutting down the government. Any bill that Obama would sign would never get out of the House. Worse still, once you start talking “fixes” you have to admit the act is broken and Obama will never do that.

          They are terrified of this happening. It would give the Republicans all of the leverage. Obamacare would fall apart without this fix and Obama wouldn’t be able to get a fix without going through the Republican Congress.

          Remember, people like Toobin and Greenhouse are nothing but Democratic operatives. If the Democrats wanted to lose this case, they would be writing about how it has a chance. Instead they are writing about how partisan an illegitimate a decision against them would be in hopes of bullying Roberts to back down. If Roberts doesn’t, they are screwed and they know it.

          1. in hopes of bullying Roberts to back down. If Roberts doesn’t, they are screwed and they know it.

            Republicans were already forced to give Robeerts an escape route — three or four days ago (reported 2/27)

            They guaranteed that existing subsidies would continue if the federal exchanges are overrruled — during a “transition period” to a replacement.

            1. “Republicans were already forced to give Robeerts an escape route — three or four days ago (reported 2/27)”

              3 senators /= “republicans”, Mike. Quit repeating that crap.

              1. HIHN: “Republicans were already forced to give Robeerts an escape route — three or four days ago (reported 2/27)”

                3 senators /= “republicans”, Mike. Quit repeating that crap.

                You’ve already been outed as a fool Hatch chairs the appropriate committee, and is thus a party spokesperson. Republicans control the House and Senate, would get blamed for screwing the poor. And a bill would be totally stupid before the required court ruling.

                Do the math, chump.

      3. Ask Bo.

        1. Bo knows law.

    2. More unbiased journalism, from Reuters:

      “Congress could not have chosen clearer language to express its intent to limit subsidies to state exchanges,” the plaintiffs, represented by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argue in their brief.

      That is fiction. Provable fiction.


      King v. Burwell hinges on one poorly worded sentence cited by the plaintiffs in a 961-page law that seems to negate a linchpin of that law ? the availability of those subsidies to middle-class families so they can buy health insurance. The question is whether that sentence should somehow outweigh all the other provisions in the law that contradict it. And when the meaning of a federal law ends up being disputed in court because the wording is vague or internally contradictory, the dispute turns on the kinds of facts journalists are used to digging out. That’s because judges are supposed to figure out what the legislators intended the law to mean and to do.

      Every single thing I quoted is wrong.

      1. Every single thing I quoted is wrong.

        1) Where did you get your law degree?

        2) What are the odds of the Court ignoring the concept of “equal treatment under the law” — which would be SEVERELY unequal if the federal subsidies are struck down. Can you name a single example where the same law applies differently depending on one’s state of residence?

        1. Can you name another law that was written to apply differently?

          1. Hihn:“Can you name a single example where the same law applies differently depending on one’s state of residence?

            Can you name another law that was written to apply differently?

            Of course not. That’s my point duh

        2. Yes, but as I mentioned below, the states can always be treated equally by opting to set up their own exchange.

          The law doesn’t say that specific states don’t get the subsidies, it says that only states that opt-in by creating an exchange get the subsidies. That’s different.

          1. Yes, but as I mentioned below, the states can always be treated equally by opting to set up their own exchange.

            If you mentioned it below, then it must be true. One small problem. The Court has already ruled that states do not have to create exchange.

            I’ll go down and read your words. Do you describe why the Supreme Court would overrule itself … with the same judges still there?

        3. Sure, this one:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..ct_of_1992

          Which, in addition to applying differently to states that already allowed some form of sports betting at the time, theoretically applied differently to states that had licensed casinos over the ten year period prior to the law.

          1. Study “ex post facto law” in the Constitution. That’s a very explicit, and stricltly constitutional reason for allowing unequal treatment. There are no others.

            1. I don’t see how applying the prohibition against sports betting in Nevada would have failed under the ex post facto provision of the Constitution – the law didn’t punish people for placing or taking bets prior to 1993. Various other provisions, sure, but not that one.

              Under your interpretation, the ’90s ban on “assault weapons” should have been overturned as an ex post facto law for not grandfathering in the states where no ban on manufacturing & owning assault weapons previously existed.

              In any case, the law was specifically crafted in such a way that New Jersey – and no other state – could have legalized sports betting during the year after its passage. That was clearly not a provision to satisfy any ex post facto concerns, given that sports betting wasn’t legal in New Jersey at the time. (New Jersey didn’t take advantage of that provision, but that doesn’t change the fact that the law treated New Jersey differently than the other states that weren’t grandfathered in.)

              1. I don’t see how applying the prohibition against sports betting in Nevada would have failed under the ex post facto provision of the Constitution

                Um, check a dictionary.
                dictionary.reference.com/browse/ex+post+facto

                Under your interpretation, the ’90s ban on “assault weapons” should have been overturned

                Now you’re confused on how it applies. “The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban’s enactment” Thus, no ex post facto elements. Howzat?

  4. There simply is not a viable case that this was a “drafting mistake” such that the Court must read it as something other than it says. The court is not going to overrule Chevron which says “the plain meaning controls”. The plain meaning here is clear. Moreover, the legislative history clearly shows that Congress meant what it said and one of the key advisers who helped draft it “the infamous Jonathan Gruber” admitted the same. Liberals try and pretend there is no way it could mean what it says when in fact it makes perfect sense that Congress would gives states the incentive to set up their own exchanges by subsidizing citizens from states who did so.

    1. It means what they want, when they want it you rethuglican fool!

      This thing needs to die.

  5. I think there might be an equal protection argument against the provision. Can the government consistent with equal protection withhold subsidies from people because their state government refuses to set up an exchange? I keep trying to think of an analogous example but I can’t. But it would be a pure rational relationship test. And it is pretty hard for a statute not to pass such a test.

    That being said, if you are looking for a way Roberts could come up with another “penaltax” like decision where he gives liberals what they want but uses some odd ball reason, equal protection might be a way he could do it. You get four justices affirming Chevron and reading it as it is written, four justices affirming Chevron but pretending the language doesn’t mean what it says and somehow it is okay to save Congress and then Roberts voting with the latter four but filing some bizaro concurring opinion saying that the statute means what it says but can’t be enforced that way because of equal protection.

    1. But if the issue is that it somehow violates equal protection, then the court must strike it down. The court has no authority to retroactively re-write an unconstitutional law, only to send it back to the legislature for re-writing.

      1. No. They strike down that part and say everyone gets the subsidy. it would be like if the feds said everyone but Mexicans gets a special bonus on their taxes. The court could fix it by killing the bonus but they could also fix it by telling the government to give it to Mexicans as well.

        1. But the court has no authority to enact any spending, or to order the legislature to enact spending – they are coequal branches of government. They can only, legally, strike down something as unconstitutional, they can’t legally enact their own legislative ‘fix’. The can only send it back to the legislature to craft a bill that passes constitutional muster.

          1. They do in the name of equal protection. For example, they did just that in school desegregation cases. They ordered states to spend money to improve the schools in minority districts and to bus students to other districts.

            1. Which I would argue is also improper. But I get your point, it is something they have taken upon themselves the authority to do, whether legitimate or not.

              1. I agree that it is. I am just saying what they did.

              2. But I get your point, it is something they have taken upon themselves the authority to do, whether legitimate or not.

                His example was misinformed. Do you have one?

            2. They do in the name of equal protection.

              No they do not. And your example os presicely backwards.

              For example, they did just that in school desegregation cases. They ordered states to spend money to improve the schools in minority districts and to bus students to other districts.

              False equivalence. They ordered the states to provide equal education, asd soon as possible. “Forced busing” is a pile oif shit by racists.. The ruling ALLOWED busing to be used, if cheaper to provide equal education as soon as possible.

              Allowing something is the opposite of forcing it.

      2. The court has no authority to retroactively re-write an unconstitutional law,

        Courts do it all the time.

        Ex. A: The Sebelius case.

        Ex. B: Many of the gay marriage cases. In those cases, the courts are rewriting statutes to allow gay marriage, rather than striking down statutes that don’t allow gay marriage.

        1. Ex. B: Many of the gay marriage cases. In those cases, the courts are rewriting statutes to allow gay marriage, rather than striking down statutes that don’t allow gay marriage.

          Name one.

    2. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community involved a statute called the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Here’s the Kagan quote in context (citations omitted):

      Michigan . . . urges us to adopt a “holistic method” of interpreting IGRA that would allow a State to sue a tribe for illegal gaming off, no less than on, Indian lands. Michigan asks here that we consider “IGRA’s text and structure as a whole.” But (with one briefly raised exception) Michigan fails to identify any specific textual or structural features of the statute to support its proposed result. Rather, Michigan highlights a (purported) anomaly of the statute as written: that it enables a State to sue a tribe for illegal gaming inside, but not outside, Indian country. “[W]hy,” Michigan queries, “would Congress authorize a state to obtain a federal injunction against illegal tribal gaming on Indian lands, but not on lands subject to the state’s own sovereign jurisdiction?” That question has no answer, Michigan argues: Whatever words Congress may have used in IGRA, it could not have intended that senseless outcome.

      1. But this Court does not revise legislation, as Michigan proposes, just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address. Truth be told, such anomalies often arise from statutes, if for no other reason than that Congress typically legislates by parts?addressing one thing without examining all others that might merit comparable treatment. Rejecting a similar argument that a statutory anomaly (between property and non-property taxes) made “not a whit of sense,” we explained in one recent case that “Congress wrote the statute it wrote”?meaning, a statute going so far and no further. The same could be said of IGRA’s abrogation of tribal immunity for gaming “on Indian lands.” This Court has no roving license, in even ordinary cases of statutory interpretation, to disregard clear language simply on the view that (in Michigan’s words) Congress “must have intended” something broader.

        1. Good quote, thanks. There is no way to uphold this without looking like a fool. People like Toobin and Greenhouse get paid to look like idiots in support of the cause. The Justices don’t and are a bit more sensitive to looking stupid.

          1. From yesterday’s WSJ Best of the Web.

      2. This is amusing.
        Leftwing media rarely quotes the words in the subsidy section, so liberals are manipulated into beliving the case is part of the vast rightwing conspiracy.

        Rightwing media rarely reports that the the feds are to create a federal exchange where a state exchange does not exist. So conservatives and libertarians believe the adminsitration is staging a coup. Or if rightwing media do admit it, they say it’s not in the subsidy section — which is true but fucking stupid.

        Not many folks have the time to do it, but if one does not studiously follow both the liberal and conservative media, then they are being manipulated. For either subscription or donation revenues.

        Like the Wall Street journal claiming that income tax revenues “skyrocketed” after the Reagn tax cuts. Or Nick Gillsepie stating that massive spending cuts after WWII, did not hinder a “postwar boom” — a boom that never happened!

  6. Law, Not Policy, Should Guide Supreme Court in Obamacare Subsidies Case

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaaaaaaaaa…. chuckle…..

    *cries*

    1. “Law, Not Policy, Should Guide Supreme Court in Obamacare Subsidies Case”

      What precedent is there for this? Hahaha!!

  7. I love you you guys keep using that same picture. It’s the perfect dog whistle.

  8. I think the statute is going down. And it wouldn’t shock me if it was by a 6-3 or better majority. Roberts craves perceived legitimacy more than anything. He knows the liberals are going to go insane if they don’t get what they want and conservatives are going to kill him if he pretends the statute doesn’t mean what it says. Most importantly, you can’t ignore the language of the statute without ignoring or overturning Chevron, which none of the justices wants to do.

    The justices are not as wickedly partisan as people think. Even the initial Obamacare decision wasn’t so much partisan on the Liberals’ part as an expression of the fact that they honestly believe that the Commerce Clause is a trap door inserted to get around all limits placed on the federal government. In this case, even the liberals are going to have a hard time pretending the statute doesn’t have a plain meaning. I bet one or two of them can’t do it. And all Roberts needs is a single liberal to vote his way and he can claim it wasn’t a partisan decision.

    1. Suppose it does go down?

      I wouldn’t put it past Obumbles to try and ignore the court.

      1. See my comment below. If he ignores it and pays out the subsidies anyway, the only remedy would be impeachment, which is no remedy. I give at least even money that is what he will do. And watch the media and Democrats in Congress tell the country that giving the President the power to ignore the Supreme Court and spend money without authorization from Congress and in violation of the law is totally okay when their side does it. The terrorist Republicans gave Obama no choice.

        1. If he ignores it and pays out the subsidies anyway, the only remedy would be impeachment, which is no remedy.

          Special prosecutor appointed by Congress to go after Anti-Deficiency Act violations.

          Don’t even have to lay a glove on Obama, necessarily. Start investigating and charging senior agency officials at DHS and IRS.

          1. I don’t you could appoint a special prosecutor without support of at least some Democrats in the Senate, which will never happen.

      2. I don’t think he can write that many checks, and while *he* might get away with it, some clerk in Snakesnavle, ID doesn’t wanna lose her cushy job writing illegal checks.

    2. I love the Commerce Clause as Trap Door analogy. That is great. To get to 6-3 which liberal Justice is most likely to defect?

      1. Good question. Oddly, maybe Kegan. She is a total government hack but that also means she is a real stickler for Chevron. Chevron basically says you don’t give the private party mercy by reading the statute any way but what it says.

        1. Keep in mind, it doesn’t necessarily even get to Chevron if the court finds there is no ambiguity, also a possibility.

    3. Here is the arugment being made by the supporters of the law.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/…..ick.2.html

      I asked her for the principles of statutory construction that the justices will deploy. She said that rule number one is that context matters, and text cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. She added that you can’t read a section that makes the rest of the statute senseless. She also said that it makes no sense to assume Congress sowed the seeds of the statute’s destruction right into it. Mostly, she said that the courts have interpretive rules preventing states from being penalized by statutes that bait and switch by offering them things which are then taken away without warning.

      1. She added that you can’t read a section that makes the rest of the statute senseless

        But it doesn’t make it senseless. It makes perfect sense for Congress to set up a system that tells states “if you don’t help us implement this, we are not giving your citizens subsidies”. They always say “well it makes no sense” and then never explain why. That is because they can’t. It makes perfect sense. If the state doesn’t want to set up an exchange or be a part of this, why should it’s citizens benefit from the subsidies? The people in states that do set up exchanges are paying state taxes to do so. So why should the people in other states get a free ride?

        1. The “makes no sense” argument doesn’t hold up very well when “the architecture of Obamacare” is on tape explaining exactly why the text of the law makes sense.

        2. They always say “well it makes no sense” and then never explain why.

          They don’t have to. It’s FYTW. Saying “context matters” might as well say “fuck the written word, we’re going on a vague recollection, zeitgeist, and word-of-mouth”.

          It’s the thought terminating portion of the concept; I have a vague sense of the intent and, absent the context I dreamed up, *I* can’t make sense of the written word.

          “I know what it means, any other interpretation is nonsense.”

        3. They always say “well it makes no sense” and then never explain why.

          Quite simple. You expect the Court to create a situation with severely unequal treatment under a single law, based on the state one lives in. Hardly seems constitional under the requirement that we all enjoy equal treatment under the law, eh?

          The problem here is that both the left and the right are being fed totally tribal information. As always.

          1. If the law as written requires unequal treatment then by your argument the law itself is unconstitutional… that doesn’t give the administration a pass to implement it however it pleases.

            1. If the law as written requires unequal treatment then by your argument the law itself is unconstitutional.

              “You expect the Court to create a situation” … is your clue that it’s NOT existing law.

              Striking down the federal exchange subsidies would create unequal treatment between states with and without state exchanges. So …. what are the odds the Court would intentionally create a structure of unequal treatment? Better?

              1. the court wouldn’t be creating the situation; the statute did that already.

                1. The fact of the administration implementing it until now in some other fashion is irrelevant to the underlying constitutionality of the law’s plain language. If the court ruling that the current implementation is illegal according to the statute means that implementing it correctly is unconstitutional, the court didn’t create that situation; Congress (and the President when he signed the bill) did.

                  1. Umm, the law also requires the federal government to establish exchanges where the states have not done so.

                    The fanatics claim that’s in a difeferent section than the subsidy section???

                    So, we’re be conned by fanatics, just like every other Tribe.

                    The same asssholes who say Congress gave itself a “special exemption” in the law for exchanges.

      2. That’s a wonderful post facto pretext, right there. Look at all the built-in assumptions.

    4. I think the statute is going down.

      What is the likelihood that the Court will ignore the principle of “equal treatment under the law.” — which MUST be ignored by any decision that creates different treatment depending which state one lives in?

      1. a rather ridiculous legal theory Mikey, perhaps that is why the administration isn’t using it.

        1. (laughing) mr burns claims “equal treatment under the law” is rather ridiculious legal theory.

          Thank GOD we libertarians don’t have to suffer any dumbasses like that!

          1. No. The dumbasses that claim libertarian can be far worse.

  9. In my memory the Nazgul have stepped up their game in the excretion of pure travesty. In my eyes they no longer have any credibility whatsoever. Hell, Justice Penaltax stated on the record that he has no intention of doing his fucking job.

    What do we keep the bastards around for?

  10. they honestly believe that the Commerce Clause is a trap door inserted to get around all limits placed on the federal government.

    I don’t think they “honestly” believe that the writers of the constitution intended the commerce clause to effectively negate almost the entire rest of the constitution. They know damn well it’s bullshit.

    1. No. I think they think that.

      1. I just don’t see how any educated person can actually believe something so illogical and patently ridiculous.

        1. Don’t be silly; educated people believe illogical and ridiculous things all the time.

          There’s no reason to think John is wrong. I totally agree.

          1. What is that famous Orwell quote Niki? Something about some ideas are so stupid that only an intellectual would believe them?

  11. If they do strike it down, I give even money that Obama ignores the court and spends the money anyway. Why not? What is the Congress going to do about it? Impeach him? And the courts won’t stop him because no one will have standing to sue. You can’t have standing without an injury and no one gets injured by getting free money.

    1. Taxpayers get injured pay having to pay for it.

      1. Not enough to give them standing. If it did, you could sue the government over every anti-deficiency act violation. You can’t do that.

        The Constitution says no money can be drawn from the Treasury without Congress. The President controls the treasury. Now, there is a law called the anti-deficiency act that says the executive can’t spend money unless it is appropriated. If the executive ignores that? The remedy is criminal prosecution by the Justice Department.

        Stop laughing now at the thought of that actually happening.

        1. The remedy is criminal prosecution by the Justice Department.

          Or a special prosecutor.

          That would require a sudden growth of spinal columns and testicles in Congress, I know.

          But its a theoretical possibility, no?

          1. “Or a special prosecutor.”

            See the Democrats embrace the concept of the Unitary Executive faster than the eye can follow.

            1. See the Democrats embrace the concept of the Unitary Executive faster than the eye can follow.

              Umm, we have slipped into a time warp. Mickey Rat must have typed this in 2009, before President Obama began implementing the Unitary Executive. Or is he still waiting for his own party to “embrace” his rule?

    2. That is my thought as well.

      It is hard for me to understand how the left keeps supporting Obumbles. Everything he touches turns to shit right before our eyes.

      1. It is hard for me to understand how the left keeps supporting Obumbles. Everything he touches turns to shit right before our eyes.

        It’s called tribalism … like when libertarians brag that 53% of millenials would vote for a President who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal … and also claim that helps an extreme social conservative like Rand Paul. That’s what tribalosm does.

      2. progressives don’t mind ruling over shit if the alternative is not ruling at all.

        1. Thus illustrating my point. “It’s called tribalism … like when libertarians brag that 53% of millenials would vote for a President who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal … and also claim that helps an extreme social conservative like Rand Paul. That’s what tribalism does.”

          So he makes a 1000% irrelevant tribal reply, presumably a memorized speaking point that he doesn’t know where to insert!

          Elsewhere on this same page ..

          https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129269

          mr burns insists that “equal treatment under the law” is a “rather ridiculous legal theory” … so he’s as bat-shit crazy as a progressive, whatever he pretends to be!

    3. No he will use it as a bludgeon against the Republicans. Those evil Koch-funded fat cats want to take money out of the pockets of hard working Americans!

      1. It won’t do him any good. It is his bill. People will blame him for the drafting being fucked up. And it is the Red States that didn’t set up the exchanges. The voters in those states hate him anyway. The ones who might believe that argument will get their subsidies and likely not even realize this ever happened.

        1. No, they won’, because if it wasn’t for those evil Koch-backed court cases, and those evil conservative Supreme Court justices, everything would be fine.

    4. I agree. The budget process is so thoroughly in the shitter as to be completely useless, so they can’t go that route. And they sure as hell don’t have the stones (let alone the votes) to impeach him no matter what he does.

      1. The budgeting process isn’t screwed up. What is screwed up is that every time Congress uses its power, Obama and the Democrats just shut down the government and the media blames the Republicans.

        Congress has the power of the purse. If it doesn’t fund something and the President vetoes the entire funding bill or funding for all of the government in protest, it is the President not the Congress who is shutting down the government.

        1. Yeah, that’s what I meant by “in the shitter”: it’s been tossed there on purpose.

          1. Don’t worry, all it will take is a President Walker for the media to suddenly realize Congress not the President has all of the power.

            1. When President Walker is signing legislation passed by a Republican House and Senate, the mainstream media will be calling for armed revolution.

              1. The Republicans will piss it all away over abortion and gay marriage.

              2. Won’t matter much.

                Their audience is the side with no guns.

                1. This is the best example of a fool you’ll see all year!

                  Won’t matter much. Their audience is the side with no guns.

                  Show of hands, how many people agree that the Republican audience is the side with no guns?

                  Is it Progressives who would repeal all taxes. if possible?

                  Atheists with Jesus Christ statues in their back yards?

                  Barack Obama running a Klavern in Mississippi?

                  1. Or Mike posting something without an all bold rage! Yessah!

                    1. Or Mike posting something without an all bold rage! Yessah!

                      Only assholes and fools try to assume somebody else’s motives. Why would I be enraged about being correct?

                    2. Maybe that is why you are enraged (i.e., you got it wrong).

                    3. Maybe that is why you are enraged (i.e., you got it wrong).

                      Readers may think for themselves here:

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129287

                      Keep proving that all the bullies and thugs here are Ron Paul supporters.

                  2. Mike – he was referring to MSM calling for an armed revolution in kinnath’s post.

                    1. Since he never references anything…..

                    2. It was clear to me. Nobody else all bold raged over it.

                    3. HIHN: Since he never references anything…..

                      CHUMBY: It was clear to me.

                      I’m sure it was, from no sources whatsoever. (lol)

                    4. Mike, you were the only one that fucked that up.

                      Do I need to reference something a few posts above? Is your eyesight as poor as your logic?

                      Kinnath at 4:22 PM on 3-2-15 indicated that MSM would advocate for an armed revolution. A day later Some Engineer responded with their audience not having guns. And then you went all bold rage incorrectly thinking he was referring to Republicans. Oops.

                    5. Mike, this epic fail of a post exemplifies why you are the Village Idiot here at Reason.

  12. Once again, unto the breach: non-unanimous rulings on what a law means ought to strike down the law in its entirety and tell Congress to do a better job next time. If the highly educated judges can’t agree on what a law means, how in the hell can anyone else, especially the people who are supposed to bow and scrape before the rule of law?

  13. “provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period,”

    Opening shots. The D’s will push hard to make that “transitional period” last forever. Just like the “Doc Fix”, and an ever growing numer of “tax extenders”.

    As I’ve said before, an adverse ruling is not going to mean subsidizes won’t be provided in federal exchanges, because the political pressure to make them available will be enormous, especially on Republicans, given that it is mostly Republican states that don’t have their own exchanges.

    The R’s don’t really have that strong of a hand here. They can push to make all sorts of changes to the law, in exchange for making the susidies available. But the D’s don’t have as much to lose. They can afford to sit on their hands and demand a “clean” bill that simply authorizes the subsidies, and nothing else.

    1. The countervailing political pressure should come from business.

      If the plaintiffs win, businesses in those states are freed from at least some of the penalties (and hence employer mandates) of the law. I suspect they will fight to keep that.

      1. Good point.
        Of course, the R’s could just tack that onto the “transitional” subsidies. Say that “these subsidies will not be considered in section” blah blah, which imposes penalties on employers.

    2. The D’s will push hard to make that “transitional period” last forever.

      Then the subsidies will continue forever, absolving Republicans of any blame.

      Just like the “Doc Fix”,

      That’s a bipartisan fuckup, like how Medicare Prescriptions now rapes the personal income tax. A quarter trillion per year, and nobody on the right has an alternative.

      1. and nobody on the right has an alternative that progressives like.

        1. and nobody on the right has an alternative that progressives like.

          Umm, the right has no alternatives at all. Well, the dumbfuck right thinks Medicare vouchers are a form of free market reform!!!!

          Are they stupid enough to believe we can liberate the automobile market by increasing competition between Allstate and GEICO?

          Are you concerned that the defenders of free markets don’t know what a market is?

          The insurance market is not the healthcare market. So it’s not just dumbass liberals who confuse coverage with treatment.

          Oh yeah, you claim that “equal treatment under the law” is a “rather ridiculous legal theory” … so you are clearly clueless about the right anyhow.

          So how satisfied are you with your President?

  14. What is the Congress going to do about it?

    It’s pretty remarkable that the Republicans seem so feckless in light of the fact that, contrary to popular belief, their brand is better than ever. Looking at Congress, governorships, and state legislators they haven’t been this powerful since the 20s, yet you’d think from their behavior that their fearful of ever winning an election again.

    1. They’re fearful of never winning the one thing that, in all honesty, isn’t that great a prize anyways.

    2. contrary to popular belief, their brand is better than ever.

      As a brand they suck. The Dems recently regained the advantage on overall party preference.

      Brand has almost nothing to do with how many seats they hold now. It’s their odds of winning an elction tomorrow.

  15. Here’s another possibility:

    Maybe they will argue, to the courts, that making the “tax subsidies” available in some states and not others would be unconstitutional. Aren’t the subsidies somehow distributed by the IRS, so you can technically still get a tax credit if you buy an off-exchange plan?

    1. To get the tax bennies, you have to buy through the exchange. I’m pretty sure.

      I haven’t heard of any arguments that it would be illegal to allow the bennies in some states but not others.

      I don’t really see an argument there, to tell you the truth. Give it a go, if you want.

      1. Well, perhaps there is some constitutional principle that taxes have to be applied to all US residents equally, regardless of which state they lived in.

        You couldn’t have a special tax that applied only to residents of New York, for example.
        So likewise, you couldn’t have a tax credit that applied only to residents of some states.

      2. To get the tax bennies, you have to buy through the exchange. I’m pretty sure.

        Yes. Or they wouldn’t need the exchanges at all. Putting individuals into groups can be done on paper. Small businesses have been doing that wth “Association coverage” for over 50 years. I created one myself in late 70s for a local small-business organization. I founded.

        Point being the entire “need” for the massive bureacracy of exchanges is to process the subsidies which are directly deducted from the consumer’s monthly premiums. The subsidy is thus “invisible” to the beneficiaries.

    2. Aren’t the subsidies somehow distributed by the IRS, so you can technically still get a tax credit if you buy an off-exchange plan?

      Depends on income and whether the unsubsidizied premiums are above (I think 9.x%)

      The Court could also rule that the 14th amendment (or a few other sections) requires “equal federal taxation” regardless of the state one lives in.

      1. Right, there’s never been a tax that applied only to residents of some states.

        And, arguably, that ought to be considered unconstitutional. You can’t just single out residents of certain states for extra taxation.

        So, they could argue that the text as written is correct, but would be unconstitutional. So the court could just strike down the *restriction* on benefits to only some states.

        1. On the other hand, all of the states are perfectly free to set up an exchange. So you can’t really say those states are being singled out.

          1. On the other hand, all of the states are perfectly free to set up an exchange. So you can’t really say those states are being singled out.

            The Court already ruled states cannot be forced to do so. You believe red states would be rushing to reverse their positions on state exchanges, I believe that’s very unlikely.

            1. No, but the fact that the states have the OPTION of creating an exchange means that the tax subsidies aren’t really unequal, they are merely conditional.

              1. Good point, but I suspect that might be too “picky” for a court decision, when there’s also a mandate involved (technically separate)

                Are there any such “conditional” examples already?

        2. Right, there’s never been a tax that applied only to residents of some states.

          The “tax” involves the mandate which is not an issue here. The issue here is the subsidies, Sorry if I was unclear.

          So the court could just strike down the *restriction* on benefits to only some states.

          True, but I’ve never seen that as included in the challenges. The Court can only decide beween the arguments before it. But the challenges all (I believe) challenge paying the subsidies to states with no state exchanges. Thus the Courty can only (if I’m correct on that) cancel the subsidies on the federal-exchange states but leave them in the state-exchange states, which is how they’d get to unequal treatment.

          1. I don’t know what is in the challenges, but it is possible someone has included it. Also, didn’t the court basically follow a unique argument in it’s decision on the first ACA case? Because they ruled it wasn’t a tax for the purpose of allowing the challenge in the first place (the standing of the plaintiffs), and then ruled that it was a tax. That’s why nobody expected the decision that it was a tax.

            1. The administration argued that it was a tax, which is when all hell broke loose because they had claimed at the time that it was NOT a tax.

              Obama is a genius at saying the right thing for the moment. In the 2008 campaign, he literally ridiculed Clinton and Edwards for promoting a healthcare mandate. He literally said, over and over in a series of ads, that “if mandates worked, we could mandate an end to homelessness.” Great line, eh?

              NOBODY nailed him on that …. except Gary Johnson.

  16. The fact that progressive commentators are now largely making smug dismissals of the lawsuit as being frivilous and beyond absurd really communicates the terror they are feeling about their prospects at court.

    They don’t want the intellectually goose-stepping morons that comprise their fanbase to consider or even expose themselves to the arguments against HHS.

    I think this goes down on a 6-3 vote for the reasons John describes above. Plus in addition to the obvious legal issues, Obamacare is not popular or as highly anticipated the way it was 3 years ago. The pressure will be lessened for Roberts.

    1. Everything they say is a lie. So when they said “this is ridiculous”, the suit was of course absolutely valid and likely to succeed.

    2. Yes. I am reading truly absurd things about the suit these days. The Reuters story I linked above calls it “a fairy tale.” Saw something earlier about how it as “widely considered one of the most absurd lawsuits in recent years.” Etc. No matter how you come down on the legal question, those things are simply wrong. They are freaking out.

    3. If you create a mindset in which losing is not even considered as a valid possibility, you do two things:

      1) You exert social pressure on people on your side to stay in line, or appear to be lunatics.

      2) You simultaneously promote the perception that the only conceivable reason for losing is due to the venality of the opposition. If there is no possible rational argument for their position, they can only hold it because they are evil liars.

  17. “Law, not policy”? That ship has long ago sailed, I fear.

  18. Just for the record, here are the states with federal exchanges:

    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arizona
    Florida
    Georgia
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Louisiana
    Maine
    Mississippi
    Missouri
    Montana
    Nebraska
    New Jersey
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Pennsylvania
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming

    1. Fuck John Kasich!

    2. Yessah! Go Pine Tree State!

  19. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!
    ……….. http://WWW.JOBS-FASHION.COM

  20. “We know of no administrative actions that could, and therefore we have no plans that would, undo the massive damage to our healthcare system that would be caused by an adverse decision,”

    Translation:
    “We fucked-up and don’t know how to fix our fuck-up, so we’ll beg for sympathy”

    1. “We fucked-up and don’t know how to fix our fuck-up, so we’ll beg for sympathy”

      It’s been 3 or four days since Republicans guaranteed that all current subsides wouid contnue during a “transition period.” (Reported on the 27th)

      Obviously REPUBLICANS need an alternative plan, perhaps even more than Democrats.

      1. “It’s been 3 or four days since Republicans guaranteed that all current subsides wouid contnue during a “transition period.” (Reported on the 27th)”

        Uh, Mike, you mean these 3 guys?
        “Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah are saying they have a plan”
        http://wate.com/2015/03/01/sen…..subsidies/

        That’s a long ways from “Republicans” as a party.

        1. And when the challengers win, public opinion will DEMAND that subsidies be restored. Think ahead, Sevo. Even if the R’s aren’t full behind it now, they will be. Or they will experience yet another rout like the one going on right now over the DHS bill.

        2. Uh, Mike, you mean these 3 guys? “Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming and Orrin Hatch of Utah are saying they have a plan”

          Try again, loser. I’ve already said it was Hatch Burr and another guy … which you responded to! And I later named Upton as the third guy,

          “That’s a long ways from “Republicans” as a party.”

          Here’s Forbes, (snicker) Note the title! (my emphasis)
          Senate Republicans Reveal Their Supreme Court Obamacare Contingency Plan

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/th…..ency-plan/

          (laughing) PLUS if the court strikes down the federal-exchange subsidies, then Republicans will get blamed for fucking all those poor people. How many MINUTES will it take them to finalize a bill that’s already highly detailed?

          Umm, you know they control the House and Senate, right? And that Obama would be screwing the poor if he vetoes it, right? Am I going too fast for ya?

          Every time you attack me, you make a total ass of yourself. Perhaps you should bully somebody dumber than you. Oh wait …

          1. “Every time you attack me, you make a total ass of yourself. Perhaps you should bully somebody dumber than you. Oh wait …”

            Every time you post here, you make a total ass of yourself.
            Mike, you’re a tired piece of crap left over from when Forbes might have had some cred.
            Fuck off.
            (laughing at you)

            1. Here it is again, dumbfuck psyho.

              “Try again, loser. I’ve already said it was Hatch Burr and another guy … which you responded to! And I later named Upton as the third guy,”

              dumbfuck adds “That’s a long ways from “Republicans” as a party.”

              Here’s Forbes, (snicker) Note the title! (my emphasis)
              Senate Republicans Reveal Their Supreme Court Obamacare Contingency Plan

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/th…..ency-plan/

              “Republicans” are a party, ummmm, as you just said, chump.

              Fuck off.

              Bullying. Intimidation. Making an ass of himself. Six times on this page alone!!

              1. “Bullying. Intimidation. Making an ass of himself. Six times on this page alone!!” – Mike describing Mike

                At least you are self-aware!

            2. Mike is the Village Idiot so you kind of have to accept the stupidity as expected.

  21. The Dems put a poison pill into the law. Now they’re changing the medicine after a lot of states decided to take the pill.

    At least when they called the tax “not a tax, but a penalty” the wording in the law had the form of a tax, so the Supreme Court could uphold it. In the subsidy case the talk matched the wording, so there’s a much tougher time getting out.

    Of course, stating all that, the Supreme court will probably vote to keep it around using some new right found in the 14th amendment.

  22. The ACA is a giant shit show the needlessly fucks with people lives. I would rather have Insurance companies compete across state lines, and the AMA not lobby for economic protection in the medical professions. /drops mic

  23. Please folks a federal exchange established in a state that refused to build a state-exchange is a state exchange established by the state that refused to create it own private exchange. These “federally” established exchanges are in fact established by each state.

    No Supreme Court will allow the United States Congress or President to become prima facia guilty for promissory estoppel.

    There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that SCOTUS will create the largest class-action liability ever. This argument is frivolous and should cause sanctions.

    1. CN_Foundation|3.2.15 @ 5:32PM|#
      “Please folks a federal exchange established in a state that refused to build a state-exchange is a state exchange established by the state that refused to create it own private exchange. These “federally” established exchanges are in fact established by each state.”

      Yes, CN, we fully realize that lefties are not competent to understand the difference between “up” and “down”.
      Please peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

  24. Republicans announced yesterday that nobody on subsidies will continue receiving them (Burr, Hatch and another guy) — during a transition period — if the Court strikes down the federal exchanges. That should take a lot pf political heat off the Court. But the right still has no credible FULL alternative — where Medicare is such a massive drain on even INCOME TAXES (which now subsidize Medicare operating deficits instead of at least reducing the trust fund.)

    1. “Republicans announced yesterday that nobody on subsidies will continue receiving them (Burr, Hatch and another guy)”

      Mike, the three guys ran it up the flagpole and YOU are the only one saluting.
      Get over it; “The Republicans” did nothing of the sort.

      1. Another Sevo screwup!

        Hihn: Republicans announced yesterday that nobody on subsidies will stop receiving them (Burr, Hatch and another guy)”

        The other guy is Upton. Hatch chairs the relevant Committee

        Mike, the three guys ran it up the flagpole and YOU are the only one saluting. Get over it; “The Republicans” did nothing of the sort.

        The Court hasn’t ruled yet, chump. Hatch chairs the appropriate committee. Republicans control both the House and Senate, and would otherwise get blamed for screwing the poor. And the “flagpole” plan has even been costed out!

        Here’s the link I’d already posted.

        http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..story.html

        the best blueprint we’ve seen ? call it Plan B if you wish ? comes from Republican Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina and Orrin Hatch of Utah, and Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan. ….

        The Center for Health and Economy also found the Patient CARE Act would help tame medical costs and yield an estimated net savings to the Treasury of roughly $530 billionover a decade, compared with the current law.

        Highly detailed at the source, fully costed out, but Sevo the bully says it was “run up the flagpole!” (hahaha)

        Uhh, that was a month ago!!!!

      2. Michael Hihn is right.

        The Republicans will get MURDERED in the polls if subsidies are not restored or even, god forbid, clawed back from unsuspecting recipents.

        There is ZERO chance that some sort of stop-gap subsidies won’t get passed.

        The real question is how much can the Republicans add to the bill to weaken/reform the ACA, especially with the D’s wielding the threat of subsidies being yanked as a bludgeon: “Look at those evil conservatives trying to take away the benefits you were promised!”

        1. Hazel, some details are that Hatch, Burr and COBURN outlined the alternative roughly a year ago. Roughly a month ago, as the challenges moved forward, they made several changes to address legitmate complaints. Forbes just did a good job of summarizing all the changes in the latest version.

          They went public now because, of course, it is now directly relevant. And, in my view, to eliminate one very understandable reason for the court to deny the challenges and avoid throwing poor folks off a cliff.

          http://www.forbes.com/sites/th…..ency-plan/

          Thank you.

          1. Right, it’s meant to give the conservative justices backing to vote in favor of the challengers.

            1. You phrased it much better than I did, Hazel.
              Damn you (smile)

              1. Sorry, Mike. Hazel is as stupid as you here.
                (laughing)
                Oh, and why don’t you get lost?

                1. Sorry, Mike. Hazel is as stupid as you here.

                  Here’s where I totally humiliated you, chump.

                  https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5126681

                  Also here:

                  https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5126730

                  (snicker)

                  1. Michael Hihn|3.3.15 @ 7:50PM|#

                    This is the best example of a fool you’ll see all year!

                    Won’t matter much. Their audience is the side with no guns.
                    Show of hands, how many people agree that the Republican audience is the side with no guns?

                    Mike, some engineer was referring to MSM calling for an armed uprising against the Republicans. Not that the Republicans don’t have guns.

                    You totally humiliated yourself. (snicker)

                    1. He never indicated what he responded to, so you just poicked one for another personal attack, (laugh)

                    2. The tabs and context made it clear to me. And potentially to every other Reason member since no one else posted. And if you were as unsure then as you are now, why all bold rage on it? Why not ask a clarifying question instead of launching into a verbal assault. This reminds me of when you incorrectly pegged me as a Christian and attacked me over same sex marriage.

                    3. Mike. You are the Village Idiot. Regarding personal attacks, spoken like a true bully. You initiated the vitriol when you attacked me in the same sex marriage article. You violated the NAP when you did that. And then you lied to try and cover-up ypur fuck up. So don’t be so suprised that I am calling you out for your bullshit and stupidity.

  25. These “federally” established exchanges are in fact established by each state.

    Wrong. And kinda scary.

    No Supreme Court will allow the United States Congress or President to become prima facia guilty for promissory estoppel.

    “Estoppel” is such a sexy word but totally irrelevant. Republicans have already guaranteed that subsidies will continue during a “transition period” if the federal subsidies are struck down.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/op…..story.html

    Any other questions?

    1. “Republicans have already guaranteed that subsidies will continue during a “transition period” if the federal subsidies are struck down.”

      Do you have some investment in this crap.
      “Republicans” did nothing of the sort; you’re bullshitting as you commonly do.

      1. Can Sevo possibly be an even bigger dumbfuck than normal? (snicker)!

        “Republicans” did nothing of the sort; you’re bullshitting as you commonly do.

        (snicker) Here’s the news story, chump. The same link is directly above your dumbass comment … Dated two hours before your fuckup!

        http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..story.html

        1. Three senators you fucking retard.

          1. John, this is a good thing. For one thing, it gives Roberts a perfectly good excuse to rule against the subsidies.

            That means the plaintiffs WIN.
            Secondly, it will launch a battle to pass amendments to the ACA.
            The R’s play their cards right, they will be able to gut the ACA in spirit, if not in name.

            Refusing to restore subsidies, at least temporarily, to people that are currently receiving them is not a good strategy. (A) because most of those people reside in Republican states, and (B) because you will instantly create a constituency of VERY angry VERY motivated voters.

            1. Hazel,
              Give the conspiracy theories a rest.

          2. Three senators you fucking retard.

            (laughing hysterically) Who do we believe Forbes? Or two trash mouth bullies in an online forum? My emphasis.

            Senate Republicans Reveal Their Supreme Court Obamacare Contingency Plan”

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/th…..ency-plan/

            1. Michael Hihn|3.2.15 @ 9:31PM|#
              “Three senators you fucking retard.”
              (laughing hysterically) Who do we believe Forbes?”

              I believe the laughing hysterically, and hysterically pretty much defines you.
              (laughing at you)

              1. Now Sevo lies about what I said, with the proof of his latest psychotic lie in plain sight!

                Here’s how he “quotes” me:
                (laughing hysterically) Who do we believe Forbes?”

                Here’s what I really said:
                (laughing hysterically) Who do we believe Forbes? Or two trash mouth bullies in an online forum?

                The trashmouth bully being Sevo, (John the other) which explains his blatant lie. (more bullying)

                Will Sevo shoot himself in the ass a FOURTH time here? Stay tuned.

                (walks away laughing even harder)

                1. I thought Ucrawford and I were the (only) two bullies. Now John and Sevo too? Any others need to be added to your list?

  26. If the Republicans had any brains at all, they would let Obozocare fall flat. When subsidies go away, the residents of 30+ states would be saddled with Obozocare without subsidies – which is freaking expensive for the average person. The Republicans can rightly say that they had nothing to do with Obozocare – that all the rules of Obozocare were created purely and solely by Demoncraps. They could then introduce legislation that scraps Obozocare in its entirety. Of course Obozo would veto such a threat to his “signature accomplishment”. And after introducing Obozocare-scrapping legislation a half-dozen times or so, and telling the world that only electing a Republican President would allow them to kill Obozocare…

  27. Dear fellow libertarians ,

    I don’t see the problem at all. Why should we care if poor people who have cancer get dropped from their insurance plans? Limited government is all about e-cigs, gay guys at CPAC, and the rise of hipster entrepreneurs.

    I IMed today with my friend in Copenhagen yesterday and told him what was going on. Personally, I don’t feel like I have a stake in this battle because I don’t really care all that much if Obamacare goes bellyup, but I could almost literally see my colleague shaking his head in disgust. He probably just doesn’t know how good we have it here in the US.

    1. Tale your murderous bullshit and economic illiteracy elsewhere

      1. Tak\le your murderous bullshit and economic illiteracy elsewhere

        John, your own bullshit and economic literacy was exposed at this link, and documented. Are your parents proud of the trashmouth bully you’ve become? Are you one reason the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertrarians?

        https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5126856

        1. Michael Hihn|3.2.15 @ 9:39PM|#
          “Are your parents proud of the trashmouth bully you’ve become?”

          Shitstain, would you like me to link some of your comments, or would you just admit you’re a hypocrite?
          (laughing at the tired, old Mike)

          1. Shitstain, would you like me to link some of your comments, or would you just admit you’re a hypocrite?

            Umm, do you know the difference between aggression (thugs like you) and self-defense)?

            Your trashmouth makes ME the victim, which means *I* decide, chump.

            1. POUNDS CHESTGet Off MY Lawn John McCain Michael Hihn

              1. You were to link to my comments. And here’s where you are proven a liar.

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129535

                And where you also committed purely ad hominem attacks.

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5129586

                (That’s how to provide a link, Sluggo)

                1. I am a proven liar because I won’t agree with you regarding something that isn’t true? You mad bro?

                  1. The links show you lied again. (snicker)

                    1. The links show you are an idiot, have a mental disorder, stroked out, or can’t accept you royally fucked up when you attacked me for being something I am not and this is your childish way of protecting your ego and paradigm.

                      I looked you up on the Idaho sex offenders list beause I thought yhere was a chance you’d be on it. And you were not on the list. So I won’t (and have never before) refer to you as a convicted sex offender. Even if you post those string of words together three times.

                    2. (laughing)
                      1) The links he lies about are directly above him.
                      2) Still refuses to document a single word.

                    3. I cited the post where you fucked up on SomeEngineer’s reply to kannath and went geriatric all bold rage about something that wasn’t true. It is in this article. How much of a loser are you to not recognize that? I know you know to what I am referring.

                      What Christian denomination am I?

    2. Gosh, if one of your friends in Denmark thinks a legislative change is a bad idea, I guess that means that we should forget all economic reasons for it and just go with what he says.

      I mean, who are we to question the wisdom of someone from a country where the central tax, regional tax, and value added tax each average over 22%?

    3. In a world of finite resources, the government will always have to make decisions about who gets treatment and who doesn’t. Perhaps a society which devotes 2/3 of it’s GDP to health care sounds wonderful to you, but it’s not necessarily a universal truth that providing people with free healthcare should have priority over other goods.

      1. Hi, Countries that have universal access to health care spend less as a percentage of their GDP for health care. Efficiency is only one of the reasons why these kinds of systems work better than ours — where primary care for the working poor means you go to the ER.

        1. american socialist|3.2.15 @ 9:49PM|#
          “Hi, Countries that have universal access to health care spend less as a percentage of their GDP for health care.”

          Hi, dipshit! Yes, they do, which is the reason people from those countries come here for decent medical care.
          Oh, and did you pay your mortgage yet, or are you still a slimy freeloader?
          And fuck off.

        2. This: “Countries that have universal access to health care spend less as a percentage of their GDP for health care.”

          Goes hand in hand with this: “In a world of finite resources, the government will always have to make decisions about who gets treatment and who doesn’t.”

    4. american socialist|3.2.15 @ 8:12PM|#
      “Dear fellow libertarians ,”

      Dear lying piece of shit,
      Don’t ever presume you have an idea of what libertarianism means, asshole.

      1. Are Sevo’s parents proud of what he’s become?

        1. Aggressive troll.

    5. Could you post the receipts where you actually pay for someone else’s medical care, food or shelter please ?

      1. Well, dumbfuck:

        1) My FICA taxes as printed on a W-2.

        2) All private insurnace premiums, $150 billion of which subsidize Medicare.

        3) My income taxes, 25% of which subsidize Medicare deficits (instead of the Trust Fund)

        4) My state taxes which pay the state share of Medicaid.

        That’s just medical care.

        Like all dumbfuck progressives, you think the money comes out of this air for

        1) SNAP (food stamps)

        2) Section 8 housing subsidies.

        WAIT! You’re the same twit who claims “equal treatement under the law” is a “rather ridiculous legal theory.”

        Do you keep a US Constitution at the bottom of your toilet, so you can piss and shit on it several times per day?

        1. “dumbfuck” -Mike

          Outstanding. Something something 91% CATO Institute something somthing never get people to support the cause. Epithet.

  28. Get government out of the health care business as much as possible. Limit them to limited regulations and financial support to those who need it.

    Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be abolished.
    People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount that they could use to purchase health insurance.
    Keep the federal regulation stating that insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions as long as the person had previous insurance.
    Allow people to purchase insurance from any state.
    Deregulate state health insurance markets.
    Unhinge medical insurance from employers in the tax code.

    Getting government out and increasing competition in this way will lower health care costs. It cuts the bureaucracy costs, cuts the fraud costs and improves competition and quality of care.

    1. Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be abolished.

      Ummm, how? (Medicare and Medicaid)
      And please don’t just scream “git the gummint out” and wave your arms, like Ron Paul. And none of Cato’s bullshit.

      If you snear at having to attact a majority of voters (also like Ron Paul), then who will be financing your military coup? It sure as HELL won’t be the Kochs!

      1. Yeah, Mike, you seem to have all the answers.
        Please tell us how to save the world!
        (laughing at Mike)

        1. Yeah, Mike, you seem to have all the answers.

          Umm, I asked for an answer.

          1. Village Idiots sometimes don’t get answers. Such as why are such a dumbass.

      2. Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be abolished.

        Ummm, how? (Medicare and Medicaid)

        Ahem. You left out the second proposal of the comment:

        People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount that they could use to purchase health insurance.

        And *that* answers your question.

        1. Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be abolished.

          Ummm, how? (Medicare and Medicaid)

          Ahem. You left out the second proposal of the comment:
          People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount that they could use to purchase health insurance.

          Ahem, FAIL: And please don’t just scream “git the gummint out” and wave your arms, like Ron Paul. And none of Cato’s bullshit.

          You’ve just abolished Medicare for everyone above the poverty line. I repeat: HOW?

          You ALSO ignored: “If you sneer at having to attact a majority of voters (also like Ron Paul), then who will be financing your military coup?”

          HOW?

          And *that* answers your question

          Ahem, you ignored most of it.

          One more time:How do you get elected on a platform to abolish Medicare, and get votes from the recipients and their relatives? … as Democrats run commercials of you pushing gramma off a cliff (this time true)
          And please don’t just scream “git the gummint out” and wave your arms, like Ron Paul.

          OMG — Did you also swallow the even CRAZIER: Repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing?

          1. I completely support replacing the income tax with the 9 – 9 – .9 plan. Because I support taxes. /sarc

            1. Dumbfuck shoulda checked the link first (snicker) He opposes:
              1) REALLY eliminating the IRS instead of Ron Paul’s bullshit.
              2) Repealing the corporate income tax will double the stock market, creating $13 TRILLION in new investment capital, supported solidly by higher retained earnings,
              3) Also salvages all the bankrupt pension funds, without a dime of taxpayer dollars.
              4) States collect and forward both sales taxes. Feds both income taxes, slashing bureaucracy and simplifying business tax payments.
              5) This allows New Federalism. with tax revenues flowing in both directions. Taxpayers may then force competing governments, fed vs state, every 10 years or so … since the original federalism failed. Reagan’s New federlism would have begun that, but they had no credible trabnsfers of tax dollars with programs.

              That’s our choice, versus dumbfucks like Chumby and Ron Paul who can only screech “repeal all taxes” … which, I’ve already shown, was too extreme for even Ayn Rand. (snicker)

              1. Are those taxes voluntary or would I be required/forced into paying them? Because if it is the latter then it violates the NAP and the is the basis for whether I support something or not. And in the case of mandatory taxes, I do not support them.

                1. Are those taxes voluntary or would I be required/forced into paying them?

                  No to both.

                  Because if it is the latter then it violates the NAP and the is the basis for whether I support something or not. And in the case of mandatory taxes, I do not support them.

                  (snicker) Do you pay them?

                  Again, the following all think you RonPaultards are stupid
                  1) Ayn Rand
                  2) Cato Institute
                  3) 91% of libertarians.

                  One more time.
                  1) Educate the public
                  2) Reduce government to its barest minimum
                  3) Adopt voluntary taxation as the final step.

                  How do we even merely reduce taxes wthout being voted in to do so and without first cutting spending … or staging a military coup? BLANKOUT

                  1. So how are taxes involuntary yet not forced/coerced?

                    I pay some of them because an armed intervention by the state is something I will most assuredly lose. And I regularly find ways to minimize having to do so. If you are saying that by paying them I agree with them I disagree. A child sex slave may accept their situation but it doesn’t mean they agree with their situation.

  29. As always, Suderman is way behind the curve Forbes has a fairly detailed review of the various aspects for the GOP Senators plan, authored by Hatch, Burr and Upton as an update from last year’s version.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/th…..ency-plan/

    Now let’s THINK. If the Court throws out the federal-exchange subsidies, Republicans will be subjected to immediate screeching about screwing the poor. So how many MINUTES will it take them to get informal agreement on introducing their current plan? I figure they already have it or they wouldn’t be babbling about it so heavily. Make sense?

  30. Surely the administration has prepared in great detail for an adverse ruling?one Republican legislator suggested at a hearing last week that the White House has put together a 100-page dossier of potential responses?although what, exactly, the White House would do remains unclear

    Not unclear to anyone else. They will scream, in delight, about the Republican war on the poor. Financed of course by the 1% (or the Kochs, interchangeable)

    Which is why the GOP announced their plan that would maintain the subsidies during a “transition period” to their full proposal. But because of tribalism, the Dems might just stick with blaming the Republicans anyhow.

    Meanwhile, the right has no plan at all for the biggest disaster of all, Medicare. They’d be wise to refuse any more DOCFix renewals which would leave the Dems twisting slowly in the breeze. Can’t do DOCFix because we need to pay for Obamacare, right?

    1. Yeah, Mike and if they do that, why the other folks will do this maybe and then the……
      (laughing at Mike; fuck off)

      1. Now Sevo lies about what I said, with the proof of his latest psychotic lie in plain sight!

        Here’s how he “quotes” me:
        (laughing hysterically) Who do we believe Forbes?”

        Here’s what I really said:
        (laughing hysterically) Who do we believe Forbes? Or two trash mouth bullies in an online forum?

        The trashmouth bully being Sevo, (John the other) which explains his blatant lie. (more bullying)

        Will Sevo shoot himself in the ass a FOURTH time here? Stay tuned.

        (He’s now up to seven!)

        (snicker) Now watch him copy my laughter. Again.

        1. I thought I was the bully. Me and Ucrawford.

          Now it is John and Sevo? I feel like you don’t love me anymore.

  31. Obama has a plan, another executive order. Congress is irrelevant.

    1. FINALLY! SOMEBODY GETS IT!!!
      (lol)

      1. The Village Idiot fpund an acorn. Ain’t that cute.

  32. Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right or responsibility to ensure that the citizens of the free states have or purchase medical insurance (or any other good or service) ? Absent such federal powers why must congress rush to ensure that subsidies , which should not be being paid for insurance which should not be being forced upon anyone , be maintained at all ? Why is it always the responsibility of congress to fix or at least interfere in any perceived ill or unfairness some progressive twit can imagine ?

    1. Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right or responsibility to ensure that the citizens of the free states have or purchase medical insurance (or any other good or service) ?

      Umm, we’ve been saying that for almost 50 years. You’ll just have to shoot all the voters. Pissing and moaning about “what the founders intended” doesn’t seem to be working. DUH How about ….. wait for it …. a better free market alternative?

      Absent such federal powers why must congress rush to ensure that subsidies , which should not be being paid for insurance which should not be being forced upon anyone , be maintained at all ?

      You’d prefer cancelling the health insurance of millions of low-income Americans, while Democrats point, lauigh and screech about the 1%?

      Why is it always the responsibility of congress to fix or at least interfere in any perceived ill or unfairness some progressive twit can imagine ?

      Because it’s not a military dictatorship.
      And, umm, YOU are the one who says “equal treatment under the law” is a “rather ridiculous legal theory.”

      So only YOU can ignore the Constitution??? (OMG) It’s hypocrites like you that cause the libertarian brand to be rejected by 91% of libertarians Umm, does that tell ya anything?

      1. I think 91% of libertarians went on Wikipedia and found that some crazy, raging, old man was somehow linked with the LP and decided that they wanted to be as far as possible from that.

        1. Chumby/Bully just shot himself again
          The libertarian rejection was shown in a 2006 CATO/Zogby survey .

          1) 59% self-identified as libertarian, “fiscally conservative and socially liberal.” I call them “Nolan Chart libertarians.”
          2) They added “also known as libertarian” and 25% (of the 59%) refused to include the libertarian brand.
          3) A mere 5.3% accepted the libertarian brand. The lowest ever, but the first with TWO choices for libertarians

          Was this shift in public tolerance created by the 5% libertarians, or by the 59% Nolan libertarians? (duh).
          Two conclusions.

          1) Reason essentially reports to movement libertarians, what Nolan libertarians are achieving. The 5% (like you) has never done shit.
          2) The WSPQ has shown a majority for over 30 years, but our brand is ? 5%.
          3) SOMETHING has been killing us for decades, something within the 5%.

          I submit we’re being killed largely by aggression, bullying and thugs like you, but mostly anti-gummint purists. The rest of us are being elected and otherwise active in our communities. That’s why the greatest threat to liberty is ? libertarians (not all, but most of the 5%)

          The lesson is clear. We need to reject the enemies of liberty among us, before we can EVER build a free society. Proof: “How Libertarians See Themselves” here:
          http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

          THANKS FOR ASKING! (LOL)

          1. When you came in third place in a race of three candidates, how did that manage to be described as getting elected?

            I don’t support mandatory taxes and I think that is one of your primary areas of disagreement. Potentially why you appear to have a sore spot when folks call out socialism. Of course, you are also still mad at me because you onitiated verbal abuse with me based on an assumption I was something that I am not.

            1. When you came in third place in a race of three candidates, how did that manage to be described as getting elected?

              Yep. I finished third for statewide office under the Libertarian Party/ (gasp)
              But we did gain major party status. Wrong election dumbfuck.

              Your bullshit on mandatory taxation was exposed here:

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/03…..nt_5132137

              Third repeat:

              How do we even merely reduce taxes wthout being voted in to do so and without first cutting spending … or staging a military coup? BLANKOUT

              Keep showing everyone how crazy you RonPaultards are. More:

              Here’s where Ron Paul shows himself to be a psycho-social conservatives. Says that “separation” is part of the secular war on religion, States (laughiing) there is no basis for separation in ant of the founders writings. (OMG) So he’s as crazy as Santorum!

              http://archive.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

              Thanks for giving me a place to expose the statist bigot!

              1. Mike – your cite linked to one of your posts. That falls under strawman and possibly red herring.

                Your first amendment argument regarding religion is also a red herring. Other than you incorrectly labeling me as a Christian there hasn’t been a religious component to these discussions. You must be livid with yourself that you fucked that up royally.

            2. Second repeat:

              Also, Mensan genius, how can you RonPaultards have been suckered into believing we can repeal the income tax and run the country on FICA taxes?

              1. Third place Mike – government takes a haircut. A pretty substantial one. And the belief is that the country will be better off with as little government involvement as possible.

                How can you have been suckered into wrongly thinking I am a Christian? Then how could you have sickered yourself into continuing that falsehood after being notified of your stupidity? And how could you have fucked up so royally with reading comprehension to thonk that Some Engineer was referring to any post other than klinnath? So stupid. Repeatedly. For all to see.

            3. Are those taxes voluntary or would I be required/forced into paying them?

              No to both.

              Because if it is the latter then it violates the NAP and the is the basis for whether I support something or not. And in the case of mandatory taxes, I do not support them.

              (snicker) Do you pay them?

              Again, the following all think you RonPaultards are stupid
              1) Ayn Rand
              2) Cato Institute
              3) 91% of libertarians.

              One more time.
              1) Educate the public
              2) Reduce government to its barest minimum
              3) Adopt voluntary taxation as the final step.

              How do we even merely reduce taxes wthout being voted in to do so and without first cutting spending … or staging a military coup? BLANKOUT

              1. I gave you an example in my state of how the income tax was being proposed to being eliminated and ypu went geriatric apoplectic on it. Can’t have the state reduced in size; they might not need Top Men to show the idiotic masses how to wisely be governed.

  33. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.
    For information check this site. ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  34. It would take 10 minutes for congress to authorize subsidies for last year and this year while they “bridge” to somewhere else.

    1. And they’ve already committed to — as you know because they called it a bridge.

  35. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
    http://www.wixjob.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.