Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEx-Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson at heart of court fight over federal health care act
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
This artists rendering shows Michael Carvin, lead attorney for the opponents of the health care law, addressing the justices on Wednesday. If the administration loses, millions of people nationwide could lose health coverage.
http://www.livewellnebraska.com/consumer/ex-nebraska-sen-ben-nelson-at-heart-of-court-fight/article_01f77b88-c287-11e4-8d3f-cfcdb04f2b32.html
Posted: Wednesday, March 4, 2015 9:56 am
By Joseph Morton / World-Herald Bureau
WASHINGTON Its been two years since former Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska left Capitol Hill, but his name was invoked yet again Wednesday as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the latest challenge to President Barack Obamas health care overhaul.
At the heart of the case is whether a phrase in the law was intended to restrict government subsidies only to health care exchanges established and run by states and not those that are federally run.
Defenders of the law say it would make no sense for Congress to limit subsidies only to state-based exchanges, but those challenging the law have suggested that it was written that way in order to placate Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.
Millions of people could be affected by the courts decision.
FULL story at link.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 698 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ex-Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson at heart of court fight over federal health care act (Original Post)
Omaha Steve
Mar 2015
OP
Seems the bigger problem is his wanting to make damn sure there would be no national exchange
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#4
He wanted to be the big important power broker. Hope he enjoys the fallout now.
TwilightGardener
Mar 2015
#5
I'd not wager too much on him giving a shit even after consuming a whole pallet of exlax.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2015
#6
A court observer and expert in this was on my show today and he said it will be 6-3
NoJusticeNoPeace
Mar 2015
#3
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)1. The Cornhusker Kickback lives on! Good old Helmet Head.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)4. Seems the bigger problem is his wanting to make damn sure there would be no national exchange
The efforts seem to have generated the inconsistencies being pressed here.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)5. He wanted to be the big important power broker. Hope he enjoys the fallout now.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)6. I'd not wager too much on him giving a shit even after consuming a whole pallet of exlax.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)2. Adding this cross post for true constitutional explanation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026316188
Dear SCOTUS: Health reforms intended for all under constitution
LTE in today's Tampa Bay Times.....
I was astounded when reading this editorial on the issue of King vs. Burwell. The sentence quoted by the Times to be the basis for the suit indicated that federal subsidies are provided to low-income people who buy private insurance on an exchange "established by the state".
The dictionary gives the first political definition of "state" as "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation." It is further defined as the "body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church)." Additionally, the definition includes "the operations or activities of a central civil government."
The document in question was written as a federal law. It is not a law passed by one or more individual states. The United States is a constitutional union of states, not a loose confederacy. A law of the national government is a law in all the states. The state referenced in the law is the state in the national sense of the word. This difference was thoroughly and thoughtfully worked out by the Founding Fathers. Any decision to the contrary could destroy the very basis of our CONSTITUTION.
Mxxx Axx Hxxxxx
Dunnellon, FL
Dear SCOTUS: Health reforms intended for all under constitution
LTE in today's Tampa Bay Times.....
I was astounded when reading this editorial on the issue of King vs. Burwell. The sentence quoted by the Times to be the basis for the suit indicated that federal subsidies are provided to low-income people who buy private insurance on an exchange "established by the state".
The dictionary gives the first political definition of "state" as "a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation." It is further defined as the "body politic as organized for civil rule and government (distinguished from church)." Additionally, the definition includes "the operations or activities of a central civil government."
The document in question was written as a federal law. It is not a law passed by one or more individual states. The United States is a constitutional union of states, not a loose confederacy. A law of the national government is a law in all the states. The state referenced in the law is the state in the national sense of the word. This difference was thoroughly and thoughtfully worked out by the Founding Fathers. Any decision to the contrary could destroy the very basis of our CONSTITUTION.
Mxxx Axx Hxxxxx
Dunnellon, FL
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)3. A court observer and expert in this was on my show today and he said it will be 6-3
to uphold the law as is.
He said Roberts and Kennedy are going to do the right thing and he explained why.
Kennedy expressed serious constitutional concerns if the plaintiffs win based on states rights and Roberts was far too silent throughout the day for someone who would be CHANGING his mind as he would have to do.
Let's hope so