SCOTUS declares its time for Obamacare Round II

[Sava]

Do I really need to respond to your dumbass pedantry?

[Sava]

oh wait a minute

so you're saying the only error I made was not specifying that costs would be lower for those paying premiums?

thanks DD

I appreciate your support

[Sava]

btw, seems like changing the tax burden in that matter only serves to punish the people conservatives are fake concerned about (young healthy males)

screw them over

they're the last best hope the GOP has for survival

unless you feel like becoming the party of amnesty

[DinoDoc]

so you're saying the only error I made was not specifying that costs would be lower for those paying premiums?

I'm saying that you aren't reducing costs if the system is dependent on subsidies.

[Sava]

I'm saying that you aren't reducing costs if the system is dependent on subsidies.

Silly me for assuming the implication would be obvious.

If subsidies are removed, the people paying premiums will see their costs increase.

Dumb****.

[DinoDoc]

If subsidies are removed, the people paying premiums will see their costs increase.

The people paying the premiums will see the actual cost incurred. Isn't that what I said?

[Sava]

Today? If you did, I missed the post. You should probably quote it.

seems like you are just being a nit picking little shit

but I get it... you have no actual argument and don't wish to get bitchslapped by a fact-wielding pot head

[Ben Kenobi]

That 78% figure is likely completely made up.

Gee. Google search finds it in 10 seconds.

Are you just slow or purposefully dumb?

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/29/obamacare-year-one-78-percent-premium-hikes/

The hardest hit are 23-year-old men, who are being charged 78 percent more this year than they were in 2013

[DinoDoc]

but I get it... you have no actual argument and don't wish to get bitchslapped by a fact-wielding pot head

I don't care to get into an argument on the merits of the law. It's been debated ad nauseam here and a lack of support for the law seems baked in with the general public according to polling. The more relevant question regarding the law and one the Court has strangely decided to take up is what the law itself says about the disbursement of subsidies. Are people on the federal exchanges denied subsidies as the law says or do they have access to them as the IRS says? I'm in the camp that says the Executive Branch can't simply rewrite the law to suit political needs.

[Sava]

I'm in the camp that says the Executive Branch can't simply rewrite the law to suit political needs.

I don't believe this for a second. Well, I believe it... but just that your belief is purely partisan and wouldn't exist if the administration were Republican.

It's fun watching you hide behind that argument though.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm in the camp that says the Executive Branch can't simply rewrite the law to suit political needs.

Rule of law seems to only work one way these days. Once it's rewritten it cannot be unwritten.

[Sava]

You are an insanely stupid person.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are an insanely stupid person.

I'm not the one unilaterally banning logical constructs. What's next, banning induction?

[Sava]

That last post didn't help your cause any.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sheesh, I bet you can't even define Ockham's Razor.