Author Topic: The ACA/Obamacare Thread  (Read 19561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5880
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #665 on: October 30, 2017, 11:05:20 AM »
Sounds pretty inefficient. Maybe private prisons could do a more economical job.

*Just threw EB the biggest, meatiest, juiciest bone imaginable  :)

No reply to that necessary as I am just baiting you. But many people would say that cost is well worth it. We should be spending that much to rehabilitate them (Yes, I know Red thinks that's a bullshit word...) because that is worth the investment. These facilities that are "helping" junkies may cost a lot less, but are they really solving a problem? I don't consider the "Well, they're going to kill themselves anyway, let's help them!" approach to be in our society's best interest.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 869
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #666 on: October 31, 2017, 10:00:42 AM »
Other countries have shown that they do work.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20115
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #667 on: February 28, 2018, 10:46:47 AM »
So something interesting is brewing here. The red states have filed a lawsuit that actually has a decent chance of killing ACA, though the process they're using falls somewhere between dubious and completely fucked. In short, the SCOTUS upheld the ACA on the basis that it was essentially a tax. In a recent budget the republicans dropped the axe on the mandate, thus making it no longer applicable as a tax, which would therefore negate ACA's validity.

Personally, I see no reason why this should render it unconstitutional. Robert's decision didn't say that it would be unconstitutional without the mandate. Only that with the mandate it was constitutional. Therefore I don't see why the SCOTUS would reconsider the original case in light of the new status, though I suspect they will find a reason. The problem is that it amounts to using procedure to sabotage a bill you dislike because you can't repeal it through the legislative process. Perhaps if laws enacted undermine it I could see it becoming unsalvageable. That's not what happened here, though. And in any case I see it as a subversion of the process. I'm not real comfortable with that.

I have no idea if this has come up before, though I suspect it has. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11845
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #668 on: February 28, 2018, 10:55:03 AM »
So something interesting is brewing here. The red states have filed a lawsuit that actually has a decent chance of killing ACA, though the process they're using falls somewhere between dubious and completely fucked. In short, the SCOTUS upheld the ACA on the basis that it was essentially a tax. In a recent budget the republicans dropped the axe on the mandate, thus making it no longer applicable as a tax, which would therefore negate ACA's validity.

Personally, I see no reason why this should render it unconstitutional. Robert's decision didn't say that it would be unconstitutional without the mandate. Only that with the mandate it was constitutional. Therefore I don't see why the SCOTUS would reconsider the original case in light of the new status, though I suspect they will find a reason. The problem is that it amounts to using procedure to sabotage a bill you dislike because you can't repeal it through the legislative process. Perhaps if laws enacted undermine it I could see it becoming unsalvageable. That's not what happened here, though. And in any case I see it as a subversion of the process. I'm not real comfortable with that.

I have no idea if this has come up before, though I suspect it has.

Go back in time to mp.com and look.  I wasn't smart enough or prescient enough to prescribe how it was actually going to go down, but I called Roberts' opinion "brilliant" (maybe I said "genius") and well beyond the capacity of most to understand (not because of intelligence, but just the arcane workings of Constitutionality and how it relates to the process of administering government day-to-day) how much of a bone Roberts threw to the those against the ACA while still maintaining meaningful stare decisis and not being an "activist judge".   

This may be the reaping of those seeds. 

I agree with much of what you said, but I'm not losing sleep over it, because ultimately it could be reassessed by the Supreme Court, and they can definitively weigh in on whether the Roberts' opinion is commutative.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20115
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #669 on: February 28, 2018, 12:10:46 PM »
I'm not losing sleep over it, but it doesn't sit well with me. I think the SCOTUS will certainly revisit it because there are several of them who want nothing more than to find a way to undo it. What bugs me is that I don't think they'll address what is essentially an end run around the legislative process.

And in many ways I think this is an example of Trump and the Republicans doing Obama a solid. Obama no longer owns ACA. It could be said that he never did since it was undermined repeatedly before and during its actual existence. In any case its failure belongs more to the GOP than Obama at this point, I think. As much as the republicans want to believe that historians will view Obama as a failure across the board, I doubt historians will find anything to judge him by. Rather than letting his accomplishments stand or fall on their own merit, Trump and his minions have systematically erased just about everything he's done. Considering the shitty governance we've had this century, Obama's (I) might be the high grade.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson