Discussion for article #230807
Except it is only āan ambiguityā because the Rās frothing Tea Mob wants something, ANYTHING to chew on.
If not for the rabid anti-Obama obstructionists in Congress, this would never have been an issue, but they managed to sort through the language that most sane people understand in its simplest and most pertinent meaning, and found word combinations they can extrapolate artificially to create what can only be called ambiguous by someone desperate to obstructā¦ ANYTHING.
Without a compliant oldstream media to nudge this semantic overreaching into the anti-Obama lexicon, this issue would never have grown the phantom legs that seem to carry it forward. And the fact the Supreme Courtās Corporate 5, with Roberts in full retreat from his earlier judicial wisdom, has chosen to interfere so dramatically is just more proof they are pawns of big business, not protectors of our individual rights and freedom.
Without those subsidies to help me get the healthcare I needed desperately, I would have become a much bigger burden on their privileged society, and now I can work again. I would wager that story has been repeated many time over and over again, due to the subsidies that were available to people like me who had been cobraāed out of health insurance a decade ago, when so many of us fell off the charts because the rates soared beyond our ability to pay.
9 Likes
Oh, thereās the play: Supremes blow up Obamacare, Republican Congress demands ridiculous concessions to fix it. Obama balks and the entire commentariat shrugs simultaneously and wonders aloud why this president canāt compromise even to rescue the cornerstone of his presidential legacy.
On the other hand, hospitals and insurers will be screaming bloody murder (and I wouldnāt be surprised if old Trent isnāt on their payroll here).
5 Likes
It escapes me why Democrats arenāt shouting from the rooftops that Republicans are suing to implement a massive tax increase on millions of middle-class Americans. Iām certainly not the sharpest lightbulb under the basket, but even I can recognize it for what it is.
6 Likes
Iām not buyinā it. This is an obvious good-cop bad-cop routine. Lott has to give plausible deniability to the possible claim that Republicans in Congress do not want to repair the law to be in accord with the obvious intention of its writers. Because that is what the Supremes will do: send it back to Congress to āfixā it.
cause it seems dems wont do things that would make a hell of a lot of common senceā¦like fight against the republicons and their policies that hurt the average americanā¦they might get called mean names
Not only did Lott say to fix it, on another site he reportedly told them to fix it BEFORE the SC hears the case!
1 Like
This will be fascinating. Half the states didnāt go with Medicaid expansion, but it hasnāt seemed to be much of an issue. Poor people have no political power, so they havenāt organized or complained. But if the red states decide not to set up health care exchanges, this starts to have an impact on higher income taxpayers, including self employed, who are benefiting from the new law. These people will still have to buy health insurance or pay a penalty but without an insurance exchange. Will these folks in red states organize or complain? Also, at some point, red state residents will realize that their taxes are subsidizing health care in blue states. And companies will notice that we have a two tier health care system and may choose to set up shop in states with healthier residents.
2 Likes
Awwwwww, Trent Lott thinks Congress still works, just like back before he helped Newt break it. Thatās cute.
4 Likes
Thank you so very much for this needed post. I myself was blindsided by the opposition to Mr. Obama after 2009.
2 Likes
I assume Mr. Lott represents many insurers who have a lot to lose if the law is overturnedā¦remember always follow the money when Trent talks
2 Likes
Hasnāt that been the plan all along???
Trash āObamaCareā , twerk it, use language that sounds ādifferentā and then slap their label on it?
and thenā¦
'It took usPubs to bring affordable health care to the US"!!
1 Like
That was my very first thought when the article mentioned he was a lobbyist.
"Trent Lott said today that if the Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare subsidies over a technicality, Republicans should work with Democrats to fix the text of the bill so as not to totally screw millions of Americans. "
And why shouldnāt they just fix it now and save the millions in expenses of having SCOTUS waste time on it?
Huh? Answer me that one Trent.
Well, yes. Itās amazing how you regain your sanity when your clients are paying you to be sane.
2 Likes
My recollections of Lott is of someone who was simply very conservative and prone to bouts of sentimentality about the Old South. When it came to actually getting stuff done, he was constructive and a team player, albeit one way too accommodating to lobbyists. I canāt imagine for a minute him conducting himself like McConnell.
He was sorta sane. He wasnāt quite McConnell level, even if he did say something stupid about the old segregationist asshole.
If we recognize it for what it is, we donāt need rooftops.
This only kills the ACA in the red states that refused to setup their own exchange. This will put even more pressure on the Republicans in those states. Apparently Democrats need to be hit over the head with a 2X4 before they bother to vote. Maybe this will provide the required motivation.