Discussion for article #234816
Yes, even though, as the reporter noted, the IPAB can only make recommendations, and that âCongress could override the cuts with a two-thirds majority or by enacting a similar level of savings,â these wingnuts argue that the IPAB âis unconstitutional because it has too much power and not enough oversight from Congress.â
In addition, itâs important to note, as the reporter here has, âBecause health care costs have been relatively slow in recent years, the board has not taken effect.â
And as President Obama noted the other day, while healthcare costs have been the main driver of our long-term debt, the ACA is now becoming the main factor in reducing our long-term debt.
Idiots with lawyers.
14 Likes
The United States is not the U.K., which is the size of Virginia and North Carolina. In an area that small, what with the automobile and even a modicum of communicative ability, âsweeping things under the rugâ would be quite a logistical undertaking.
The United States is over 3,800,000 square miles, with just the contiguous states spanning four time zones (not many people are wont to just look at a globe and see, proportionately, the distance between Ireland and Maine, juxtaposed with the distance between Maine and California).
Notwithstanding the cyber-revolution, the USA is remarkably provincialâŚAnd insular enough (a characteristic cheerfully and effectively exacerbated by FOX and Talk Radio) so that vast sections of the country are, frankly, resistent to knowledge or interest in data apart from propaganda.
The job of the MSM (we have lost an effective Fourth Estate some time agoâin a sense, blogs like this one are the equivalent of Apostles talking to each other) is, simply to tamp down communication which would increase any negative reaction to this TeaBagging United States Supreme Court.
4 Likes
Sahil? âCertiorariâ is an actual honest-to-god real word. Putting it in quotes is like putting a term used in another profession, like âappendectomyâ âCorinthian orderâ or âscoop,â in scare quotes.
5 Likes
They bounced it on standing. However, it does give me a little concern because the heart of this case is another go at the Chevron Defense. Makes me wonder if they didnât refuse cert because they are going to hand down something dealing with the Chevron precedent in King. That has always seemed the most likely reason for Alito and Roberts granting cert in that case to me.
But its just reading tea leaves on my part. They didnât give much of a reason, so who knows?
2 Likes
Theyâve got the one that they want, as dumb and as wrong as it is, it gives them some sort of foundation to work from.
How do people get standing for things like this? If the board has never convened how can one be harmed by it?
1 Like
It looks more ââimportantâââŚ
and ''eye-catching".
doncha know?
I guess that means: The Death to Death Panel suit is dead.
Nobody studies word choice, grammar, precision in language any more. Canât be bothered.
3 Likes
When are these Tea Baggers going to realize they are being played for suckers by lawyers who are not advising them of a losing battle? The timing was certainly wrong. No one has yet been harmed by a Board that has exercised no power up to this point. Keep those lawyers rich, you suckers! (while you continue to wallow in your poverty brought on by the people pulling your strings)
3 Likes
And lawyers with no principles
1 Like
It only takes four justices to grant cert. Alito (along with Scalia and Thomas) was almost certainly one of the cert votes in King - but I assumed Kennedy was the fourth, since he voted against upholding the individual mandate in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, not Roberts.
Do you have a link/cite to indicate Roberts also voted to hear King? Or is it just a guess/speculation?
The conservative male jurists on the roberts court have the case they want⌠burwellâŚnonsense like hobby lobby!
Call them out:
1.202.479.3000 or 1.202.479.3211
1 Like
A pittance for the paupers before the axe of doom, or a signal of hope for the A.C.A.?
Yes, and thereâs a good chance the IPAB will never be convened.
⌠and working on contingency.
Looking at it from a data-driven perspective, it ainât growth in Medicare costs that is the primary problem with the money we spend on healthcare in the US. We need an IPABish board to oversee the costs being jacked up by the ânonprofitâ health organizations.
I love the sign in the picture showing
âCan Ye hear us now? 72% say No to Obamacare.â
72^+% of WHAT/WHOM? 72% of yâalls protesting the ACA?
70%+ of Americans LOVE the PP-ACA.
Davey, IANAL, but it seemed to me that by suggesting that the next president (and hence his/her HHS and IRS) could reverse the current agenciesâ treatment of subsidies on the federal exchange, Roberts (while still feeding the bogus line that the statute is ambiguous) was actually invoking the Chevron principle. If thatâs so (and attorneys present please correct me if itâs not), it seems unlikely that heâd choose to undercut the precedent that might allow him to thread the needle between letting the subsidies stand now and giving the right something so they wonât come after him with pitchforks. No?