always amazing to me how “impartial” judges decisions can be predicted by which party was in power when they were appointed. what happened to fair and analytical decisions based on the what the law says instead of the current “interpretation”?. the law as passes says clearly only state exchanges get subsidized. period. it doesn’t say that all exchanges, or state and federal exchanges – it only refers to state exchanges.
Bob, we now have dueling courts on this law. Perhaps they should just all line up against each other and shoot it out. If I were one of the first court judges, I would be using a .44 Magnum on the other side.
Agent: no doubts that you would for a moment. And that is how the GOP debates issues: my way or the highway. Forget the middle ground or compromise. If I don’t get my way, I will shoot you dead.
Excuse me Celtica? I believe it was your President who famously said it is my way or the highway. No input from the Republican ideas, get on the back of the bus and out of my way. How has that turned out in the ensuing 4 years? More opposition than ever. The Hobby Lobby case was just the first shot across the bow.
Yo, Agent, care to cite a source for that famous quotation? By the way, the Republicans refused to participate — wasn’t it Mitchie boy who said his only job as minority speaker was to make Obama a one term president? So — how did that work out for ya?
So much for their Republican idea…(ps: making idea plural into “ideas” would be going just a bit too far, considring their history)…you got exactly what you put into it. Nada.
July 22, 2014 at 4:51 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent? A source? LOL!!! You’re a riot Celtica!
July 22, 2014 at 5:16 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Celtica, the Republicans made the mistake of meeting the President at Blair House and presented their ideas to deaf ears. Obama, Pelosi & Reid were having none of that. Arrogantly, he said the Republicans should just get on board with his plan. And the rest is history! One lie after another about its merits and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
July 22, 2014 at 7:15 pm
celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent, you mean this meeting in which they found agreement throughout the day? Of course since you were there, obviously you have keen insider insight…
1. It gives me great pleasure to inform you that he is your President too.
2. You weren’t in the room, so you only conjecture arrogance where none existed — as you are wont to do.
3. Both side found areas of agreement. It just that it had to be all your way or the highway.
4. He is still your president.
5. And yes, it still makes me tingle when I think of how annoying that must make you.
From 2010:
The bipartisan health care meeting on February 25th offered something you rarely see in Washington: an open, honest, productive discussion between the political parties. Leaders from across the political spectrum gathered at Blair House to exchange thoughts about an issue that touches all of us: rising health costs and unfair insurance company practices. Throughout the day, both sides found areas of agreement on important issues like: Preventing waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid; Addressing medical malpractice reform; Reforming the insurance market; And giving individuals more choices in coverage, and giving small businesses the opportunity to pool coverage for their employees.
I keep trying to post these darn links and it won’t go through. I apologize if duplicate posts show up later on! If this post goes through, you will see he DID make this ridiculous “back of the bus” comment.
There is no dispute he made the comment, but you rarely hear the context. He said something like, Republicans have run the but off into a ditch, so they can come along on the bus but they have to sit in the back. In other words, they can’t drive the bus because they already did and drove it off in the ditch.
July 23, 2014 at 8:46 am
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Actually, it’s not partisan judges. Judges fall into two categories: strict constructionists and spirit of the law. The person in power gets to choose which breed of judge he wants to appoint. Yes, it would be nice if all judges agree; however, just as all Americans can’t agree – it will never happen. Judges are human, too, and come with their own belief in the law. It appears political to us, but it is more complicated than that.
KY, when judges make bad decisions on cases, they are often overturned by higher courts. Scotus will eventually hear this and make a ruling. They screwed up once on the Constitutional issue and got it right on Hobby Lobby. If they interpret the actual language of the law, it pertains to State Exchanges getting subsidies, not Healthcare.gov.
Good one Proud. Progressive Democrats have very selective memory regarding the statements their “Messiah” has said. The only thing they can remember is “Hope & Change”.
No, Libby got it right. It’s your selective memory that only remembers the 8 second Sean Hannity soundbite and not the full context. You’ve been Hannitized!
Dan the Man, it will be interesting because the Federal courts told Arizona there is a difference between State and Federal when Obama challenged SB 10 70. The ruling said only the Federal government can secure our borders as that is their job and not the States. My point being, if they come back and say in the healthcare act that State means the same as Federal, then I think Arizona should challenge the SB 10 70 ruling based on this new ruling.
Baxtor, since when has the Federal Government secured the borders? Gov Perry sent the Texas National Guard down to the border to stem the tide at state expense because Obama won’t. Yes, I think the Feds should be challenged at every opportunity. We don’t like being ruled by the pen.
Agent, exactly, that’s what made us upset in Arizona. You shoot down part of our law stating the State of Arizona shouldn’t be involved in Federal matters of the border/illegal immigration, but then they do NOTHING about it. That’s why everyone saw the picture of Brewer waiving her finger in the President’s face when he got off the plane. Now his own judges rule that the Federal and the States are the same for his healthcare reform act. Make up your mind. So much for our legal system being the checks and balances of our legislative and executive branches. Now it’s who put you in the judges seat is how you determine law.
Baxtor, it is high time someone provided the checks and balances to this administration since the House & Senate will not do their job. We can’t rely on the Judiciary either since one court rules one way, the other another way. The Supremes should be brought back from their 3 month vacation instead of waiting until sometime next year to hear this case. If they rule on the language of the law, it clearly says State Exchanges, not Federal. Oops! Another typo before it was printed?
July 23, 2014 at 10:22 am
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Where were the checks and balances from 2000-2008 during Cheney’s terms in office?
July 23, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
txmouth – checks? They put those wars on the credit card, no checks were issued. Balance? They gave the balance of those wars to the current administration.
July 24, 2014 at 9:53 am
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Is that the group that Dubya went AWOL from and was later found partying it up in Alabama?
Why would we expect judge to lean in a different direction then the POTUS who nominated them? Other than the occaisional SCOTUS judge who moves along the political spectrum, most judges have an ideology or at least interpretation of the law, conservative or liberal.
What is different, sadly, is that the enacted laws are rarely bi-partisan any more, so a law is enacted by one party or another, then it gets interpreted by a series of judges who may not agree with that interpretation based on their own views and then they decide to make law on their own instead of interpreting the law.
We don’t seem to govern in the national interest anymore but rather if we label ourselves as blue or red.
Blu, this law was totally partisan by Progressive Democrats and they wonder why it is so unpopular and have so much opposition. The recent Hobby Lobby case does give one hope that it is turning around and the sooner we get rid of this law, the better for America.
I had to be passed partisan because the Obstructionist Republicans can’t play nice with anyone. If you guys had ponied up in a spirit of bi-partisanship we wouldn’t be sitting here today with this POS legislation. This is entirely of your own doing.
Duh. Is there an echo in here? Yes, it was Democrat controlled and that’s why it got passed. Your side refused to participate. They packed up their toys and went home. Hope you’re happy with the result. I’m not.
July 23, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Empo, do you remember Nancy not having the votes in her own caucus for a very long time and had to bribe, cajole, threaten Blue Dogs with loss of committees etc? The left keeps saying the Republicans were the obstructionists including the President and the Republicans couldn’t block anything if the Democrats had a big majority and all were on board. I wonder whatever happened to those Blue Dogs after they lost their seats in the mid terms. Reckon they got Lobbyist jobs in DC?
July 23, 2014 at 4:40 pm
txmouthbreatherboogereatertx says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Agent,
Do you remember your first Werther’s Originial?
July 22, 2014 at 3:38 pm
Ben Dover says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Well that was short lived. I guess the criminal class wins again.
I wonder if the courts for the insurance companies will rule in favor of insurance companies when we say to them, “Yes the wording in our policy says _________, but we meant for that to be excluded.” It’s funny on how one court can rule their interpretation, when the law says STATES! Any person knows if it’s not written in a contract, you can’t uphold it in a court of law…I guess unless you appointed the judge, then maybe you can???
Baxtor, I applaud the companies putting more “plain” language into insurance policies so there is little disagreement interpreting whether claims are covered or not. Back several years ago, the language was so lawyerese, it took an FC&S Bulletin to interpret coverage. Now, with this law, no matter what it states in the language, they really meant something else. What a mess of biblical proportions.
I also remember the early versions of fax machines to fax in Loss Notices. Acord had black edges to the notice and that low memory fax machine would take 5 minutes to go through like a caterpillar.
July 24, 2014 at 8:30 am
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Yes, I remember when we got our first fax. We only used it for special things because the paper was so expensive. Little did we know in a few years the type would disappear from the paper and you’d have no record of what was sent. We’ve certainly come a long way.
July 23, 2014 at 3:05 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet, I can’t tell you how many times I had to deal with an adjustor who was interpreting coverage wrong and were denying claims that were covered. It was a lot over the years. I also had to deal with some underwriters as well. Nowadays, we don’t have many underwriters who understand coverage. They write on a cookie cutter approach and don’t deal with coverage issues very much.
As long as we stick to P&C issues, we agree much more than disagree.
July 24, 2014 at 8:54 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I concur as well. Too many companies seem to be using underwriters as paper pushers and not enough attention is focused on the decision making and creativity an underwriter should concern himself/herself with developing. Perhaps predictive modeling has something to do with that, but not all carriers across all industries utilize a predictive model approach. Not ironically, those are the companies that tend to have underwriters who are solid decision makers and have a sense of creativity.
Well played, Democrats, well played. Guess that death knell on the court ruling was a bit premature.
always amazing to me how “impartial” judges decisions can be predicted by which party was in power when they were appointed. what happened to fair and analytical decisions based on the what the law says instead of the current “interpretation”?. the law as passes says clearly only state exchanges get subsidized. period. it doesn’t say that all exchanges, or state and federal exchanges – it only refers to state exchanges.
Bob, we now have dueling courts on this law. Perhaps they should just all line up against each other and shoot it out. If I were one of the first court judges, I would be using a .44 Magnum on the other side.
Agent: no doubts that you would for a moment. And that is how the GOP debates issues: my way or the highway. Forget the middle ground or compromise. If I don’t get my way, I will shoot you dead.
Excuse me Celtica? I believe it was your President who famously said it is my way or the highway. No input from the Republican ideas, get on the back of the bus and out of my way. How has that turned out in the ensuing 4 years? More opposition than ever. The Hobby Lobby case was just the first shot across the bow.
Yo, Agent, care to cite a source for that famous quotation? By the way, the Republicans refused to participate — wasn’t it Mitchie boy who said his only job as minority speaker was to make Obama a one term president? So — how did that work out for ya?
So much for their Republican idea…(ps: making idea plural into “ideas” would be going just a bit too far, considring their history)…you got exactly what you put into it. Nada.
Agent? A source? LOL!!! You’re a riot Celtica!
Celtica, the Republicans made the mistake of meeting the President at Blair House and presented their ideas to deaf ears. Obama, Pelosi & Reid were having none of that. Arrogantly, he said the Republicans should just get on board with his plan. And the rest is history! One lie after another about its merits and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Agent, you mean this meeting in which they found agreement throughout the day? Of course since you were there, obviously you have keen insider insight…
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/bipartisan-meeting
Agent:
1. It gives me great pleasure to inform you that he is your President too.
2. You weren’t in the room, so you only conjecture arrogance where none existed — as you are wont to do.
3. Both side found areas of agreement. It just that it had to be all your way or the highway.
4. He is still your president.
5. And yes, it still makes me tingle when I think of how annoying that must make you.
From 2010:
The bipartisan health care meeting on February 25th offered something you rarely see in Washington: an open, honest, productive discussion between the political parties. Leaders from across the political spectrum gathered at Blair House to exchange thoughts about an issue that touches all of us: rising health costs and unfair insurance company practices. Throughout the day, both sides found areas of agreement on important issues like: Preventing waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid; Addressing medical malpractice reform; Reforming the insurance market; And giving individuals more choices in coverage, and giving small businesses the opportunity to pool coverage for their employees.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/bipartisan-meeting
I keep trying to post these darn links and it won’t go through. I apologize if duplicate posts show up later on! If this post goes through, you will see he DID make this ridiculous “back of the bus” comment.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obama-Black-Republicans-Bus/2010/10/27/id/375089/
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-to-gop-%E2%80%98they-can-come-for-the-ride-but-they-have-to-sit-in-back/
There is no dispute he made the comment, but you rarely hear the context. He said something like, Republicans have run the but off into a ditch, so they can come along on the bus but they have to sit in the back. In other words, they can’t drive the bus because they already did and drove it off in the ditch.
Actually, it’s not partisan judges. Judges fall into two categories: strict constructionists and spirit of the law. The person in power gets to choose which breed of judge he wants to appoint. Yes, it would be nice if all judges agree; however, just as all Americans can’t agree – it will never happen. Judges are human, too, and come with their own belief in the law. It appears political to us, but it is more complicated than that.
KY, when judges make bad decisions on cases, they are often overturned by higher courts. Scotus will eventually hear this and make a ruling. They screwed up once on the Constitutional issue and got it right on Hobby Lobby. If they interpret the actual language of the law, it pertains to State Exchanges getting subsidies, not Healthcare.gov.
Good one Proud. Progressive Democrats have very selective memory regarding the statements their “Messiah” has said. The only thing they can remember is “Hope & Change”.
No, Libby got it right. It’s your selective memory that only remembers the 8 second Sean Hannity soundbite and not the full context. You’ve been Hannitized!
I guess the same can be said when Bush said adickfor
Nobody who knows anything about these types of rulings thought this matter was settled. This will go to the SC and be decided in June, 2015.
I look forward to a federal court decisoin that the word “state” means the same as the word “federal.”
Only in Obama-land, where a president can rewrite a passed law to remove an express date that appears three times, can this exist.
Dan the Man, it will be interesting because the Federal courts told Arizona there is a difference between State and Federal when Obama challenged SB 10 70. The ruling said only the Federal government can secure our borders as that is their job and not the States. My point being, if they come back and say in the healthcare act that State means the same as Federal, then I think Arizona should challenge the SB 10 70 ruling based on this new ruling.
Baxtor, since when has the Federal Government secured the borders? Gov Perry sent the Texas National Guard down to the border to stem the tide at state expense because Obama won’t. Yes, I think the Feds should be challenged at every opportunity. We don’t like being ruled by the pen.
Agent, exactly, that’s what made us upset in Arizona. You shoot down part of our law stating the State of Arizona shouldn’t be involved in Federal matters of the border/illegal immigration, but then they do NOTHING about it. That’s why everyone saw the picture of Brewer waiving her finger in the President’s face when he got off the plane. Now his own judges rule that the Federal and the States are the same for his healthcare reform act. Make up your mind. So much for our legal system being the checks and balances of our legislative and executive branches. Now it’s who put you in the judges seat is how you determine law.
Baxtor, it is high time someone provided the checks and balances to this administration since the House & Senate will not do their job. We can’t rely on the Judiciary either since one court rules one way, the other another way. The Supremes should be brought back from their 3 month vacation instead of waiting until sometime next year to hear this case. If they rule on the language of the law, it clearly says State Exchanges, not Federal. Oops! Another typo before it was printed?
Where were the checks and balances from 2000-2008 during Cheney’s terms in office?
txmouth – checks? They put those wars on the credit card, no checks were issued. Balance? They gave the balance of those wars to the current administration.
Is that the group that Dubya went AWOL from and was later found partying it up in Alabama?
Why would we expect judge to lean in a different direction then the POTUS who nominated them? Other than the occaisional SCOTUS judge who moves along the political spectrum, most judges have an ideology or at least interpretation of the law, conservative or liberal.
What is different, sadly, is that the enacted laws are rarely bi-partisan any more, so a law is enacted by one party or another, then it gets interpreted by a series of judges who may not agree with that interpretation based on their own views and then they decide to make law on their own instead of interpreting the law.
We don’t seem to govern in the national interest anymore but rather if we label ourselves as blue or red.
Blu, this law was totally partisan by Progressive Democrats and they wonder why it is so unpopular and have so much opposition. The recent Hobby Lobby case does give one hope that it is turning around and the sooner we get rid of this law, the better for America.
I had to be passed partisan because the Obstructionist Republicans can’t play nice with anyone. If you guys had ponied up in a spirit of bi-partisanship we wouldn’t be sitting here today with this POS legislation. This is entirely of your own doing.
Last I heard, it was the Democrat-controlled Senate that approved the bill, albeit not reading it in its entirety.
Let the name-calling from the left begin…
Duh. Is there an echo in here? Yes, it was Democrat controlled and that’s why it got passed. Your side refused to participate. They packed up their toys and went home. Hope you’re happy with the result. I’m not.
Empo, do you remember Nancy not having the votes in her own caucus for a very long time and had to bribe, cajole, threaten Blue Dogs with loss of committees etc? The left keeps saying the Republicans were the obstructionists including the President and the Republicans couldn’t block anything if the Democrats had a big majority and all were on board. I wonder whatever happened to those Blue Dogs after they lost their seats in the mid terms. Reckon they got Lobbyist jobs in DC?
Agent,
Do you remember your first Werther’s Originial?
Well that was short lived. I guess the criminal class wins again.
I wonder if the courts for the insurance companies will rule in favor of insurance companies when we say to them, “Yes the wording in our policy says _________, but we meant for that to be excluded.” It’s funny on how one court can rule their interpretation, when the law says STATES! Any person knows if it’s not written in a contract, you can’t uphold it in a court of law…I guess unless you appointed the judge, then maybe you can???
Baxtor, I applaud the companies putting more “plain” language into insurance policies so there is little disagreement interpreting whether claims are covered or not. Back several years ago, the language was so lawyerese, it took an FC&S Bulletin to interpret coverage. Now, with this law, no matter what it states in the language, they really meant something else. What a mess of biblical proportions.
I’m so old, I remember the days when Claims would still go to the underwriter to clarify intent. Oh wait, that still happens.
I remember when claims went to the carrier in the mail! Snail mail.
I also remember the early versions of fax machines to fax in Loss Notices. Acord had black edges to the notice and that low memory fax machine would take 5 minutes to go through like a caterpillar.
Yes, I remember when we got our first fax. We only used it for special things because the paper was so expensive. Little did we know in a few years the type would disappear from the paper and you’d have no record of what was sent. We’ve certainly come a long way.
Planet, I can’t tell you how many times I had to deal with an adjustor who was interpreting coverage wrong and were denying claims that were covered. It was a lot over the years. I also had to deal with some underwriters as well. Nowadays, we don’t have many underwriters who understand coverage. They write on a cookie cutter approach and don’t deal with coverage issues very much.
Amen to that, Agent! We agree on something.
As long as we stick to P&C issues, we agree much more than disagree.
I concur as well. Too many companies seem to be using underwriters as paper pushers and not enough attention is focused on the decision making and creativity an underwriter should concern himself/herself with developing. Perhaps predictive modeling has something to do with that, but not all carriers across all industries utilize a predictive model approach. Not ironically, those are the companies that tend to have underwriters who are solid decision makers and have a sense of creativity.