U.S. Politics 24

[davos]

Carry on.

[TrackerNeil]

Thinker X:

Lessee here...(by way of outrageous example)...some future president and congress (or maybe the current ones) get an appeal from say...the automotive industry. They *really* desperately need to make a lot of sales, or, well, the result will be catastrophic to their bottom line. So...they mandate - using the ACA as legally binding precedent - that all US citizens above a certain minimum income level *have* to go out and buy a car or face a really nasty IRS penalty come tax time. Now...that is the extreme and imphausible example - but that idiotic *mandate* does open the door to something of the sort at some point in the future..and it is something that *YOU* and other ACA promoters, at least in these threads do not appear to have considered *at all*.

The comment to which you replied was in reference to political riskiness, and not the ACA in particular. And, as I have said, I will not debate the merits of a law that was debated to death for a full year. I know conservatives just can't get past the ACA, but that's not my problem. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is law and until the Supreme Court says otherwise we must all - liberal, moderate, and conservative - live with it.

However, I will take up your example - which is indeed as implausible as you indicated - that Congress would someday mandate that all Americans purchase cars. This is a slippery-slope argument, and to make that work you have to show me how taxing Americans who refuse to buy government-subsidized health insurance will lead to a legal requirement to purchase an automobile. If you can't connect those dots you really can't paint a clear image of this dreadful slippery slope that will do us all so much damage.

Also, just because government has the power to do something does not mean government will take that power to the most onerous and oppressive extent possible. Congress' ability to levy an income tax has never tempted that body to tax us all at 100%, has it?

[ThinkerX]

However, I will take up your example - which is indeed as implausible as you indicated - that Congress would someday mandate that all Americans purchase cars. This is a slippery-slope argument, and to make that work you have to show me how taxing Americans who refuse to buy government-subsidized health insurance will lead to a legal requirement to purchase an automobile. If you can't connect those dots you really can't paint a clear image of this dreadful slippery slope that will do us all so much damage

According to you (and others) the ACA, including the mandate is now *law*. Lawabiding US citizens no longer have a choice about buying health insurance - we either do so or become lawbreakers.

The point I am trying to make - and which you seem unwilling to even consider - is that if the mandate stands in this instance, it *will* stand in others, including, at least potentially for some things which you might very strongly disagree with on a personal/ideological level. But tough - you supported the legislation (law) which set the precedent for such, so you *have* to fork over part of your income for whatever the next mandate is for, regardless of whether or not you support it.

This is not about liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. It is not really even about the ACA for the most part. It is about a very bad precedent with an excellent chance of being duplicated again and again - if it stands.

[Ormond]

The point I am trying to make - and which you seem unwilling to even consider - is that if the mandate stands in this instance, it *will* stand in others, including, at least potentially for some things which you might very strongly disagree with on a personal/ideological level. But tough - you supported the legislation (law) which set the precedent for such, so you *have* to fork over part of your income for whatever the next mandate is for, regardless of whether or not you support it.

This is not about liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. It is not really even about the ACA for the most part. It is about a very bad precedent with an excellent chance of being duplicated again and again - if it stands.

You seem to be thinking that the concept of "mandating" will be an all-or-none proposition for the legal system. Either all mandates are allowable, or none of them are.

I don't think that is logical or historically accurate. Just because a particular way of doing things is considered to be allowable in one instance doesn't mean that it will be allowable in all instances. I think most people, including most judges and legislators, aren't quite rigid and/or unintelligent enough to interpret things that way.

It's sort of like the trite example that even the very strong American commitment to "free speech" does not mean that one is legally allowed to cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Just because one "mandate" is considered appropriate doesn't mean that all of them have to be.

[sologdin]

which set the precedent for such

but it really isn't a precedent that binds the future. the judiciary works like that, on paper, but the legislature just makes shit up as it goes along.

[Heal]

Then why haven't those socialist Europeans in Holland and Switzerland started forcing their citizens to buy other stuff?

Switzerland is a different story they have a relatively small population and are very hard on illegal immigration.

[lokisnow]

also those crazy socialist founding fathers like John Adams or Thomas Jefferson forced private citizens to pay a tax to support health care for themselves.(privately employed seamen were required to purchase health insurance)

However, like the founders' rather ardent support for separation of church and state, it's likely this sort of thing will be willfully and purposefully ignored by conservatives because it doesn't jibe with the George Washington-was-Merken-hell-yeah mentality of most ringwingnuts.

[ThinkerX]

but it really isn't a precedent that binds the future. the judiciary works like that, on paper, but the legislature just makes shit up as it goes along

So...say this time around the mandate stands up to a court challenge. People like Tracker are thrilled.

Next time Congress decides to impose a mandate - and again what that mandate is for does not matter - the courts will have the upholding of the ACA mandate as precedent. Now...given how utterly corrupt, greedy, and broke the country is, can you not envision Congress at least attempting the mandate stunt again? Especially if it holds up to court action this time around?

Or say its at the state level instead of federal. Some Teabagger governor, with a like minded state legislature, looks at this and goes 'wow - we can plug most of the holes in program whatever here'...and acts accordingly.

[TerraPrime]

Next time Congress decides to impose a mandate - and again what that mandate is for does not matter - the courts will have the upholding of the ACA mandate as precedent. Now...given how utterly corrupt, greedy, and broke the country is, can you not envision Congress at least attempting the mandate stunt again? Especially if it holds up to court action this time around?

So.... you're firmly entrenched in the slipper slope argument fallacy, then? In other words, we should not support the ACA because the mandate portion of this law will lead to other more terrifying (but to be determined for what the exact nature of the terror will be) laws that will obliterate all that is free and dom and good about this country. That sounds about right to you?

[TrackerNeil]

According to you (and others) the ACA, including the mandate is now *law*. Lawabiding US citizens no longer have a choice about buying health insurance - we either do so or become lawbreakers.

The ACA is not law "according to me"; it's law according to the democratically expressed will of the 111th Congress, and by the willing signature of President Barack Obama. That's law according to anybody. The Supreme Court might overturn that law, but the key word is law. Accept it.

This is not about liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. It is not really even about the ACA for the most part. It is about a very bad precedent with an excellent chance of being duplicated again and again - if it stands.

Well, you're reiterated your slippery-slope argument, but you have yet to support it. Can you provide examples in which, as Ormond said, a mandate to do one thing led to a mandate to do everything? If not, maybe it is you who should reconsider your stance.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

The ACA is law. Whether it will survive Constitutional challeges to it's terms remains to be seen. I'm hoping to see a rollback of Wickard.

[IheartTesla]

Is this US politics thread 48/2(0+1)?

I just listened to Trump's crazy Birtherism on CNN. I can't believe this muppet is trailing only Romney.

[awesome possum]

Is this US politics thread 48/2(0+1)?

I just listened to Trump's crazy Birtherism on CNN. I can't believe this muppet is trailing only Romney.

I can't believe he continues to receive national outlets to spout his idiocy.

[Yagathai]

This is exactly why I left the Republican party. It took a left turn into crazytown some time ago, and this birther idiocy (which is what's buoying Trump) is only the latest symptom.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The ACA is not law "according to me"; it's law according to the democratically expressed will of the 111th Congress, and by the willing signature of President Barack Obama. That's law according to anybody. The Supreme Court might overturn that law, but the key word is law. Accept it.

Why should we "accept it", when we can try to defund it? Or hold it hostage to something like the debt ceiling?

Well, you're reiterated your slippery-slope argument, but you have yet to support it. Can you provide examples in which, as Ormond said, a mandate to do one thing led to a mandate to do everything? If not, maybe it is you who should reconsider your stance.

Given that this is the very first mandate ever passed by Congress, that would be tough.

But this is really a legal argument more than a practical one. As sologdin said, a court may well consider the "slippery slope" argument in determining the applicable constitutional principle. But in terms of Congress, it's almost a moot point anyway. The only reason it's an issue here is because the arrogant dispshits who drafted and signed this law expressly avoided calling it a tax. A future Congress that wanted to mandate car purchases or something would simply structure it as a tax and avoid the constitutional issue. So as a practical (rather than legal matter) worrying about future "mandates" is pointless, because they'll be structured as taxes anyway.

[Shryke]

I can't believe he continues to receive national outlets to spout his idiocy.

He's now only trailing Romney in the polls, that's why.

[TrackerNeil]

Why should we "accept it", when we can try to defund it? Or hold it hostage to something like the debt ceiling?

Well, it's up to you if you want to refuse to accept the reality of a law you probably can't change. As to this hostage-taking stuff, that's also up to you, but I don't think it's going to work out the way you want. I can just see John Boehner telling Americans he's crashing the economy - which is what refusing to raise the debt ceiling would do - so insurance companies can once again discriminate against folks with preexisting conditions, or cancel the insurance policies of sick people over administrivia. That's a battle I think Barack Obama is willing to fight, and so am I.

I must point out, however, that your post perfectly demonstrates the extent to which conservatives can't get the ACA out of their craws. They're willing to ruin the economy over it. Remember my post about Republicans wanting the economy to fail?

On an unrelated note, via Ezra Klein, the Oregon state House got Rickrolled...by itself.

[Alcibiades]

Insisting on concessions to raise the debt ceiling is a bit like holding your mother hostage to extort money out of your brother.

[awesome possum]

Why should we "accept it", when we can try to defund it? Or hold it hostage to something like the debt ceiling?

And this perfectly shows why even the "logical" members of your party are beyond ridiculous and why EHK was right when he said the Republican party should be disbanded. For the good of this country, because you guys are off your fucking rockers and will end up sounding the death knell sooner rather than later. And you'll do it out of spite. Not in an accidental "I didn't know that would happen" sort of way. But in a spiteful, "well if we can't outlaw fags and dead babies and health care we're going to take this mother down!"

Fucking disgusting.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I must point out, however, that your post perfectly demonstrates the extent to which conservatives can't get the ACA out of their craws. They're willing to ruin the economy over it.

Of course, it is possible that we believe the ACA itself will help accelerate the road to ruin by creating another medical entitlement program when our government can't afford the ones we already have. And yes, I know the arguments about the ACA supposedly paying for itself. But that includes Medicare cuts that wouldn't/couldn't apply under Ryan's Medicare reform plan, and requires faith that Congress will, each year, permit those mandatory but unspecified cuts to take place. We'll just have to disagree on the liklihood of all that happening.

Now, personally, I would not ultimately vote for default just to kill the ACA. However, a lot of this is very high-stakes poker, and so taking a position like that initially to use as a bargaining chip when things get dicey is simply smart. And I truly don't believe that the House will ultimately vote for the debt ceing to get raised unless they get some significant concessions on spending moving forward. And in fact, you might not even get a majority to approve a significant debt ceiling increase without killing the ACA. What the GOP may do here is only give a small increase, and require the President to seek another one in six months or so. That way, the issue of federal spending will constantly be an issue, which will continue giving them leverage to force more restraints on spending.

I heard a poll over the weekend - 62% of voters do not want to see the debt ceiling raised. That is an extraordinarily high number, likely based on some degree of ignorance as to the consequences of such a move. But what that tells me is that people are going to be predisposed towards supporting significant cuts in spending.