Discussion for article #230137
The GOP mantra for Obamacare has always been repeal and replace, but it has been clear from the start that the party is so driven by its right wing that the replace part is far from a given. There have been a few vague assurances that the GOP would “keep the good parts,” bit it is also clear that a successful structure can’t simply be created from just the parts that are popular.
And there are few signs that anyone in the GOP really cares much about the replace part or believes they could put together anything workable given the virulent opposition to subsidized healthcare from the right wing.
19 Likes
“…politicians in robes…”
An unfortunately accurate description of who Republicans have put on the Supreme Court.
21 Likes
The replacement for Obamacare is more Obamacare. O-care part deux.
If Republicans hadn’t thrust the nation and damn near the world into the world’s biggest ditch then they might be the ones that got things named after them. But for some silly reason, WMD care just won’t fly and Repealcare is just offensive.
Romney was their best shot and he’s just too friggin’ goofy to lead this nation and too wealthy to really give two flying figs.
If Barack had just named the plan Hussein-health, everything would be totally copasetic right now…
11 Likes
I imagine that was their plan all along…the bait and switch part, that is. I recently heard from a friend in Idaho whose federal plan is being substituted by the new state-run exchange. Same coverage, but 350% increase in cost. I suspect this is SCROTUS’s rehearsal for their run at Social Security.
And the Dems start folding like cheap suits in 3, 2, 1…
4 Likes
Fight narrow-minded legalism with narrow-minded legalism. Works for me.
8 Likes
“One such scenario would be for HHS to effectively deem all of the exchanges to be state-based, but continue operating them through HealthCare.gov,” Caroline Pearson, vice president at Avalere Health, an independent consulting firm, told TPM earlier this year.
Umm, this is effectively what the IRS does in the regulation being challenged by the vandals. If there are five SCOTUS votes for disregarding the Chevron standard because Kenyan Usurper Soshulism, HHS won’t be able to it if the IRS can’t.
2 Likes
The big question is whether GOP-led states determined to actively resist setting up their own exchanges could thwart these workarounds and stay under the protection a Supreme Court ruling hostile to Obamacare. That would not only create a major headache for the Obama administration but also deny subsidies to that state’s residents and throw Obamacare’s financial model out of whack.
How many states really have enough crazies to support such a policy decision through the next election? A few red states have already come around to accepting the terms of the ACA…By the time SCOTUS announces its decision, sometime next summer, the 2016 presidential election will be looming large. If the red-state holdouts are suddenly faced with a stark choice - Put your state sticker on the Obamacare platform or a whole bunch of your citizens lose coverage - It’ll make for some great political theater.
9 Likes
“And whether the Obama administration could reclassify every state’s exchange and completely neuter a Supreme Court ruling against it isn’t clear.”
Even if they could where would the funding come from?
Obama could just dribble around them then slam dunk in their face. That’s one way he could get around them.
4 Likes
The wink proves the point,"you can’t hide intelligence"thats why the repubs (small R) or so bent out of shape they are dealing with some one (The President) who got some smarts.
5 Likes
Probably from the outrage the members of congress would feel from those in their districts who would be affected,it takes only a few howls from across the country IMHO.
1 Like
The pressure would likely be worse than the medicare. As in effect it is taking the affordable aspect of coverage away from people. And those with the means to restore it are refusing. So it is not gaining as much as losing.
Still, I think it is still surprising the Court took up the case. From what I have read to date all the arguments supporting the government case seem much stronger. The essays from supporters of the plaintiff’s side seem to be more politically motivated and anecdotal. The only way to believe it would be to take every use of terms in isolation. And that makes any law suspect.
4 Likes
The Big O going hard to the hoop? Ah … don’t think so. Too many big bodies and elbows in the paint. Shooting 3’s more his style.
3 Likes
So if I’m reading this right, couldn’t the agency in charge of healthcare.gov just parse out separate landing pages for the states that hadn’t set up their own exchange? It wouldn’t be that hard to do if you just use existing framework. And then change some language within the main site to say things like “just enter your state of residence, and you’ll be routed to your state’s exchange”.
Fight bullshit semantics with bullshit semantics. Am I over-simplyfing this?
15 Likes
Starting with Bush V. Gore, through Citizens United, and then the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court is increasingly become a law unto itself. They have shown no respect for precedent, nor for statutes enacted by Congress. Without these two pillars of respect for Precedent and respect for the will of the people expressed through statutes, the idea of “laws” become meaningless.
The cold hard fact is, that without 67 votes to remove a President from office, there is very little recourse for the Supreme Court to do anything if the President decides to ignore their rulings, and instruct the IRS to pay the subsides anyway.
It may be time to threaten to take a sledge hammer to the facade of the Supreme Court as impartial arbiter, and drag them into a partisan fight.
Or Obama could take a page out of the Tea Party playbook and refuse to sign a budget unless it defunds the Supreme Court.
10 Likes
Ah shucks. I just like the photo that accompanies the article.
3 Likes
No, I think you have it right. Actually, I was thinking something similar. The Federal Government is a State, isn’t it?
My dictionary defines a state as “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government”. The usage example they give is “Germany, Italy, and other European states”
Synonyms given are “country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic, confederation, federation”
If they want to play this stupid word game, I don’t see how with the definitions and example above, the Federal Government and hence the Federal Exchange doesn’t qualify as a “State Exchange”.
5 Likes
It’s clear to me the GOP does not want ordinary folks to have nice things (meaning in this case, health care). Health insurance is to be only for those who don’t need it i.e. rich folk.
Yes I’m being flippant but it sure looks to be true.
4 Likes
The best thing to do would be to fight tooth and nail from here to 2016 and get people to finally understand how vile and anti-American the Republican party has become. Get as many Dems to the polls as possible, regain the Senate and keep the White House. Having a Democrat in the White House is key to flipping the Supreme Court, and 2016 and beyond has a very real possibility of seeing at least a couple of justices retire.
6 Likes