Author Topic: The ACA/Obamacare Thread  (Read 23504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6553
  • 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: 929
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: 20882
  • 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 In a recent budget the republicans dropped the axe on the mandate, thus making it no longer applicable as a tax, which would therefore negate ACA's validity.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

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13900
  • 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: 20882
  • 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

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #670 on: June 10, 2018, 09:41:27 AM »
So the DoJ will not defend the pre-existing conditions mandate of the ACA in court.

This means those of us with pre-existing conditions may soon be priced out of the health insurance market.

I'm trying to see how kicking the legs out from under millions of constituents in this manner will help the GOP in the midterms.  Presumably pre-existing conditions impact Republicans as much as they do Democrats.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20882
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #671 on: June 10, 2018, 03:50:19 PM »
My guess is that this will drag on until after the midterms. Somebody else will step up to try and defend it and the SCOTUS wil have to decide if that entity has standing. The bigger ramifications have to do with the procedural aspect of this. What the boy king is doing is pronouncing that if you don't like a law just wait until somebody files a no-chance lawsuit and refuse to defend it. That's a pretty brazen end-run around process, and even the GOP congress recognizes that.

As for the optics, it won't play well. I doubt there are that many people specifically effected, though, particularly discounting the Trump minions that'll celebrate it no matter what. I will say that somebody with some political sense would have waited until after the midterms, though. He's made it an issue whereas people had mostly forgot about ACA in favor of more amusing blundering.

And once again I'll point out that Trump owns a huge chunk of ACA now. In fact he owns the negative chunk of it at this point. Without knowing how ACA would have played out over the long-term it's very possible he did Obama a favor by taking ownership of its demise. The majority now wants it in place and he keeps kicking the legs out from under it. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13900
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #672 on: June 11, 2018, 10:45:42 AM »
I'm probably being unnecessarily obtuse here, but I still don't know if I understand why "Trump owns the ACA now".   I'm pretty sure he doesn't see it that way.

Something about this specific issue, though, smells funny.   This is fundamentally an acceptable provision of the ACA, one of the few.  Even the health insurance industry wants preexisting conditions to be covered since it provides way more certainty over the long term than not.  The major carriers don't mind it as much as you might think, because they have bigger risk pools to cover the hits, and they can spread the higher costs among more people.   The problem is the smaller, regional players can really wreck havoc with pricing models by taking advantage of these loopholes.

The DOJ not defending is not unheard of - famously, it happened in 2012 regarding the Defense of Marriage Act - and here, it seems that three US attorneys removed themselves from the case before the DOJ officially stepped back, implying that they couldn't in good professional conscience sign the brief.  This is unusual, since DOJ attorneys defend positions they don't personally agree with all the time. 

On top of that, none of this means that the other side "wins".  There are amicus briefs (i.e. briefs filed by third parties that are not involved directly in the case) filed, including one by a representative of the health insurance industry in SUPPORT of the pre-existing conditions protections.

TL;DR:  I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from this, but I don't really think the common "Trump's pissing on Obama!" trope necessarily answers that question.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20882
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #673 on: June 11, 2018, 11:04:35 AM »
I'm probably being unnecessarily obtuse here, but I still don't know if I understand why "Trump owns the ACA now".   I'm pretty sure he doesn't see it that way.

Something about this specific issue, though, smells funny.   This is fundamentally an acceptable provision of the ACA, one of the few.  Even the health insurance industry wants preexisting conditions to be covered since it provides way more certainty over the long term than not.  The major carriers don't mind it as much as you might think, because they have bigger risk pools to cover the hits, and they can spread the higher costs among more people.   The problem is the smaller, regional players can really wreck havoc with pricing models by taking advantage of these loopholes.

The DOJ not defending is not unheard of - famously, it happened in 2012 rega
+ Attachments and other options

shortcuts: hit shift+alt+s to submit/post or shift+alt+p to preview rding the Defense of Marriage Act - and here, it seems that three US attorneys removed themselves from the case before the DOJ officially stepped back, implying that they couldn't in good professional conscience sign the brief.  This is unusual, since DOJ attorneys defend positions they don't personally agree with all the time. 

On top of that, none of this means that the other side "wins".  There are amicus briefs (i.e. briefs filed by third parties that are not involved directly in the case) filed, including one by a representative of the health insurance industry in SUPPORT of the pre-existing conditions protections.

TL;DR:  I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from this, but I don't really think the common "Trump's pissing on Obama!" trope necessarily answers that question.
The current state of the ACA has as much to do with Trump undermining it as it does with the bill Obama signed. No, Trump won't see it that way, but what difference does that make? Trump sees nothing other than Trump. As I said, most people now want the provisions provided for by the ACA and the problems that arise can now reasonably be presumed consequences of his meddling.

Also, the DOMA challenge had a very reasonable chance of winning. Obama chose not to spend the resources on a challenge he might well lose. The challenge to ACA is baseless. As I said, this creates a way to circumvent congress by letting any state that disagrees with a law have it stricken down without a challenge. Assuming of course that no other party is allowed to defend the challenge. If I'm not mistaken, that was also a consideration in DOMA.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13900
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The ACA/Obamacare Thread
« Reply #674 on: June 12, 2018, 11:14:04 AM »
I'm probably being unnecessarily obtuse here, but I still don't know if I understand why "Trump owns the ACA now".   I'm pretty sure he doesn't see it that way.

Something about this specific issue, though, smells funny.   This is fundamentally an acceptable provision of the ACA, one of the few.  Even the health insurance industry wants preexisting conditions to be covered since it provides way more certainty over the long term than not.  The major carriers don't mind it as much as you might think, because they have bigger risk pools to cover the hits, and they can spread the higher costs among more people.   The problem is the smaller, regional players can really wreck havoc with pricing models by taking advantage of these loopholes.

The DOJ not defending is not unheard of - famously, it happened in 2012 rega
+ Attachments and other options

shortcuts: hit shift+alt+s to submit/post or shift+alt+p to preview rding the Defense of Marriage Act - and here, it seems that three US attorneys removed themselves from the case before the DOJ officially stepped back, implying that they couldn't in good professional conscience sign the brief.  This is unusual, since DOJ attorneys defend positions they don't personally agree with all the time. 

On top of that, none of this means that the other side "wins".  There are amicus briefs (i.e. briefs filed by third parties that are not involved directly in the case) filed, including one by a representative of the health insurance industry in SUPPORT of the pre-existing conditions protections.

TL;DR:  I'm not sure what we're supposed to take from this, but I don't really think the common "Trump's pissing on Obama!" trope necessarily answers that question.
The current state of the ACA has as much to do with Trump undermining it as it does with the bill Obama signed. No, Trump won't see it that way, but what difference does that make? Trump sees nothing other than Trump. As I said, most people now want the provisions provided for by the ACA and the problems that arise can now reasonably be presumed consequences of his meddling.

Also, the DOMA challenge had a very reasonable chance of winning. Obama chose not to spend the resources on a challenge he might well lose. The challenge to ACA is baseless. As I said, this creates a way to circumvent congress by letting any state that disagrees with a law have it stricken down without a challenge. Assuming of course that no other party is allowed to defend the challenge. If I'm not mistaken, that was also a consideration in DOMA.

Probably won't surprise you much, but I read DOMA as a political decision, not a practical or resource decision.  The role of the DOJ is not to "take a (political) stand" but simply to be advocates for the opposite side.  The premise is that Congress passes a law.   Someone somewhere has the right, if they feel their constitutional rights have been violated, to bring suit.  The DOJ acts as counsel for the Congress, metaphorically, and defends the law.   It doesn't mean that the DOJ is morally or practically in favor of the law, it's just part of the process, part of the checks and balances.   I don't have to LOVE your position to believe you have a constitutional right to have that position heard in a court of law. 

Don't get me started on this, as it's not really a response to you, but I feel it's a part of the moral decay of our society  In this current day and age of "if you are silent you are complicit", there's this backlash over the simple act of public debate.   If you aren't with the program, you're STUPID and RACIST and IGNORANT and whatever, and a lot of it isn't about opposition, but because you have the nerve to want to understand all sides of the issue.    It's a fundamental provision of the Constitution that laws - all laws - have the opportunity to be argued and judged in front of a tribunal, and it's not "my side" that "wins", but rather the "best idea" that "survives until the next tribunal".