U.S. Politics 18

[Swordfish]

I'm almost at the halfway point and just flipping a coin.

HEADS!

[Lord O' Bones]

HEADS!

Shit. Turns out the coin in question has a turd on one side and a chicken that is not a chicken on the other. Not sure what heads is.

[Swordfish]

Shit. Turns out the coin in question has a turd on one side and a chicken that is not a chicken on the other. Not sure what heads is.

I think it means I win.

[Shryke]

If you read the article they have a great (meaning horrific) example of the kind of thing that does not count.<br><br>And again, I just don't understand the politics.&nbsp; I get that the GOP doesn't like abortion at all and doesn't want federal funding for it at all, but I just can't believe that they'd go this far for that cause.&nbsp; <br>

Is this that same bill that I posted about in the thread like last week that's ostensibly about defunding abortion for rape victims? (Not that that's much better?)

Oh yeah, that's it. Stay classy GOP.

It's an interesting question why they are bothering with this. I mean, it was always obvious they were gonna fart around and waste everyones time with bullshit. They were pretty upfront about this. I'm still surprised the investigations have yet to begin.

The only options I can think here are either:

a ) more inmates got elected to the GOP Asylum and thus they have more power in running it. Thus this gets pushed through by them.

b ) a way to pander to the base by pretending they are fighting the scourge of abortion with a bill they know will fail. They are just trying to shove it through to it's inevitable death as quickly as possible and get it out of the way and out of memory before the election.

c ) the GOP leadership really is this stupid and immoral and out of touch. A real possibility considering their votes on previous issues of this sort.

d ) some combination of the above

[TrackerNeil]

What makes you think they'd be any better at writing new laws than they were at writing this one?

Great gods, Swordfish...I know you think the ACA is an abomination, but you have no real idea exactly how the law's going to play out. No one really does, although some opinions - like the CBO's - are more trustworthy than others. Your certainty that this law is a disaster is really just philosophy, and not empiricism. You're welcome to your worldview, of course, but own it.

[Guest Raids]

Tracker, I believe there is more than abundant information in the recent pages of this thread justifying the position that the law, however well-intended, must have been written by people who flunked Constitutional Law I. That's a truth that is completely separate from any policy considerations.

I do not believe that you paused to read any of this information before replying, however. ;)

[Shryke]

Tracker, I believe there is more than abundant information in the recent pages of this thread justifying the position that the law, however well-intended, must have been written by people who flunked Constitutional Law I. That's a truth that is completely separate from any policy considerations.

I do not believe that you paused to read any of this information before replying, however. ;)

Actually I believe he's showing he's well versed in what's been said before and now on this point by Swordfish.

And it's not like the law hasn't been upheld by many a court too. I'm pretty sure the ratio of wins to losses for the ACA is like 4:1.

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker, I believe there is more than abundant information in the recent pages of this thread justifying the position that the law, however well-intended, must have been written by people who flunked Constitutional Law I. That's a truth that is completely separate from any policy considerations.

I do not believe that you paused to read any of this information before replying, however. ;)

I have read some other legal opinions that stand contrary to the ones to which you refer, but perhaps those scholars need one of those competency-based, structured interviews to weed out their subjectivity.

[Guest Raids]

I have read some other legal opinions that stand contrary to the ones to which you refer, but perhaps those scholars need one of those competency-based, structured interviews to weed out their subjectivity.

Ha. I did not even remember that it was you that got all defensive about that. Interviews going that well, eh? ;)

Anyway, awesome - you read something that says the law does not impermissibly extend the reach of the Commerce Clause/can still be justified under the tax and spend power/can be severed? Can you link it? Because I can find very, very little.

Also, the only opinion to which I referred in this thread, I think, is mine. But, as always, for legal stuff, The Volokh Conspiracy is a great source and I also read this article in Slate.

[TrackerNeil]

Anyway, awesome - you read something that says the law does not impermissibly extend the reach of the Commerce Clause/can still be justified under the tax and spend power/can be severed? Can you link it? Because I can find very, very little.

What I said was that I read opinions from legal (and other) types that do not fall into the mandate-is-doomed category. Herearea few. This doesn't mean the Supreme Court will agree, of course, but it does mean that you blithe statement upthread that the mandate is unconstitutional is not the beginning and end of the debate.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What I said was that I read opinions from legal (and other) types that do not fall into the mandate-is-doomed category. Herearea few. This doesn't mean the Supreme Court will agree, of course, but it does mean that you blithe statement upthread that the mandate is unconstitutional is not the beginning and end of the debate.

I think Raids wins the point regardless. Even if there is reasonable disagreement on whether the argument will prevail, it probably was an unnecessary risk to have taken. Yes, taxes aren't popular, but the people who didn't like the idea of taxes that didn't support the bill anyway. Looks to me like the Administration and congressional majority have put their entire achievement at risk to pander to a group that wouldn't support it anyway. And crap, they still could have mushed up the tax v. mandate argument by included both justifications in the bill. Voters just wouldn't have gotten that level of nuance, but it might have helped it survive review.

So Raids is right. The people in the Administration and Congress who apparently thought the mandate was a constitutional slam dunk were idiots.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Great gods, Swordfish...I know you think the ACA is an abomination, but you have no real idea exactly how the law's going to play out. No one really does,

"We don't really know how this is going to play out" generally isn't a strong argument in support of passing a piece of legislation. Just sayin'....

Your certainty that this law is a disaster is really just philosophy, and not empiricism. You're welcome to your worldview, of course, but own it.

I agree that certainty is overstating it, but it also isn't, as some in this thread have said previously, something that opponents are just pulling out of their asses.

1) The CBO itself admits that it's estimate is very uncertain. That's assuming that everything in the bill happens as stated, btw. A much larger that usual variance from the mean.

2) But the CBO also took pains to point out that some of the cost control measures would appear to be unworkable over time, and would present significant political challenges. It refused to offer an opinion on that because guessing what future congresses will do isn't its mission, but certainly, this factor is one whose expected value would be to raise rather than lower estimates.

3) Democrats/supporters of the ACA have loved to make fun of Mitt Romney for trying to oppose this because it is so much like RomneyCare. I posted a couple of articles last year pointing out how cost-control assumptions in Massachusetts, such as fewer people using emergency rooms because they had coverage, did not work out, and they're finding out that making health care an entitlement has swamped the system and increased costs. Even the supporters of the Massachusetts program were surprised at the cost. So that also provides some empirical evidence supporting the view that this plan likely will cost more than its supporters claim. It's not an analytical slam dunk, but neither is it at the "you're just pulling this out of your ass" level.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

1) The CBO itself admits that it's estimate is very uncertain. That's assuming that everything in the bill happens as stated, btw. A much larger that usual variance from the mean.

Everything happening as stated is pretty much the definition of estimate. The fact that the estimate is way on to the positive side means that in huge majority of possibilities the outcome is positive.

[TrackerNeil]

3) Democrats/supporters of the ACA have loved to make fun of Mitt Romney for trying to oppose this because it is so much like RomneyCare. I posted a couple of articles last year pointing out how cost-control assumptions in Massachusetts, such as fewer people using emergency rooms because they had coverage, did not work out, and they're finding out that making health care an entitlement has swamped the system and increased costs. Even the supporters of the Massachusetts program were surprised at the cost. So that also provides some empirical evidence supporting the view that this plan likely will cost more than its supporters claim. It's not an analytical slam dunk, but neither is it at the "you're just pulling this out of your ass" level.

As I have said before, I'm not getting into the ACA debate again. It's law until and unless SCOTUS says it isn't. However, it's my fault for making a comment in that vein, so I have learned my lesson. I pledge not to make any more ACA-related comments in these politics threads. I will go in another direction off your last point.

There's a school of thought that Mitt Romney is doomed in 2012 because of "RomneyCare", but after giving it some thought I disagree. Yes, Romney flip-flopped on that issue, but he did the same thing on gay rights and abortion and was yet viable in 2008. I imagine there will be trouble on that front with some people, sure, but in all honesty, those GOP voters for whom philosophical consistency is paramount probably aren't voting for Mitt anyway.

Besides, many of super-partisans possess, I have noticed, an amazing ability to delete inconvenient memories. During the 2008 race I followed RedState.com pretty closely and witnessed many posts that, boiled down, read, "If John McCain wins the nomination I will vote for an independent." Well, within three days of McCain's victory the memory deletion process was well under way, and as far as the browser could scroll there were gushing posts about McCain's service to his nation, his experience, blah blah. Should Mitt Romney get out in front next year, I suspect he too will benefit from this expedient forgetfulness.

[Guest Raids]

TN - Thanks for the links. I found the first article to be pretty unpersausive - it's really not at all on the same issue. I mean, okay, the Court declined to hear an argument as to whether the federal government could prevent felons from owning bulletproof vests under its commerce clause authority. It's really not an issue to me - the bulletproof vest was a thing in interstate commerce (it was manufactured and sold across state lines beore the defendant purchased it). No problem there. Unless the Court declined to hear a case where the government decided to make ownership of a bulletproof vest mandatory under its commerce clause authority, it just doesn't say anything about the Court is going to do with an aggregate effects analysis.

The third link is also totally bonkers. Who's crazy amicus brief is that? Oh it's by a bunch of economists. What it does is inform the Court of the really, really important need to have better health care coverage. Well, yeah. I totally agree wit that. But it has pretty much nothing to do with the federal government's authority under the Commerce Clause. I mean, Earl Warren isn't the Chief Justice. Hell, we don't even have O'Connor anymore.

The second link looks great, but I can't watch it until I get home. Look forward to checking it out - thanks for the link.

To be perfectly clear, once more, I really, really, really, really, really, really want to be wrong. Really. But so far I don't think I am.

What the hell Barack Obama, by the way? Didn't you teach Constitutional Law?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Is this the politics TTNE?

;)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

There's a school of thought that Mitt Romney is doomed in 2012 because of "RomneyCare", but after giving it some thought I disagree. Yes, Romney flip-flopped on that issue, but he did the same thing on gay rights and abortion and was yet viable in 2008. I imagine there will be trouble on that front with some people, sure, but in all honesty, those GOP voters for whom philosophical consistency is paramount probably aren't voting for Mitt anyway.

Being "viable" in 2008 wasn't enough, and I doubt it will be enough in 2012. Yes, there are people in the GOP who still support him despite that vote. But I honestly think it's a deal-killer for the majority. Heck, I have a very conservative Mormon friend, active in the Federalist Society, etc., who loves Mitt. But even he admits that given the likely prominence of the ACA in the 2012 elections, Mitt is just too badly crippled by that to win.

Besides, many of super-partisans possess, I have noticed, an amazing ability to delete inconvenient memories. During the 2008 race I followed RedState.com pretty closely and witnessed many posts that, boiled down, read, "If John McCain wins the nomination I will vote for an independent." Well, within three days of McCain's victory the memory deletion process was well under way, and as far as the browser could scroll there were gushing posts about McCain's service to his nation, his experience, blah blah. Should Mitt Romney get out in front next year, I suspect he too will benefit from this expedient forgetfulness.

Yeah, but the general election boiled down to the lesser of two evils. And while I'm sure a majority of Republicans would vote for Romney in the general election, just as they voted for McCain, he's got to win the primary to get to that point.