U.S. Politics - ACA is now official edition

[Shryke]

And people wonder why the economy is going down the shitter.

I ... what?

[Guest Raidne]

good reading, raidne. if you're the rightwingers, why not expeessly join the roberts opinion in III-A and III-D, if you want that shit to stick? kinda pointless, though, because now we know that there's five votes to kill I.8.3 on these facts, i guess.

I'm surprised I don't know this for sure, honestly, but apparently you have to concur in the judgement to have any say about anything else that sticks. So they could have all decided to uphold the ACA under the tax power, or two of them could have, and then concurred with Roberts in III-A, but they'd run the risk that III-A would just be dicta without III-D, and III-D would just not be acceptable to any hard-line conservative because it, more likely than not, violates the last resort rule

oh FFS. "force" has always been implicit in private transactions.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The Court did not, in any way, rule on whether the healthcare bill was a good idea. That is a policy decision. The Court ruled on whether Congress has the power to enact a mandate to purchase health insurance, enforced with a penalty, under the Commerce Clause and/or tax power and whether the Medicare expansion provision was a valid exercise of the spending power.

Interpretation of the Constitution is de facto policy decision: you can start with either side of the debate and work backwards to discover a reading of the document that suits your view.

[Salome the Persian Witch]

I agree, but if this had taken place years ago, I would have been so screwed by it. Until 2011, when I tore up my shoulders, the only medical attention I had in the previous 32 years, was to have a broken arm x-rayed and set. I would have had to pay a fortune for nothing.

So, when you did tear up your shoulder, you could have used insurance? Also, glad to know that you, nor no one in your family, has reproduced. I hear that costs way more than a broken arm.

On a different note - what the hell is this I'm reading about all the right wingers wanting to come to Canada. Do they know our country?!?! Universal health care, legal gay marriage, more money towards education and healthcare than to our military. Aren't we the third ring of hell to those people?

It's an exciting day in American politics and history. Thanks to those citing good articles and Raids for her analysis.

[Guest Raidne]

Interpretation of the Constitution is de facto policy decision: you can start with either side of the debate and work backwards to discover a reading of the document that suits your view.

No, you can't in the vast majority of cases and even then you are bound by past precedent. For one, I really highly doubt that Roberts is personally in favor of the ACA.

[IheartTesla]

Romney has 3.2 million dollars in hand so he can repeal Obamneycare. That is surreal in of itself.

I understand (a little bit) the argument that what works on the state level may not work on the federal level - simply as a federalism issue. But for Romney to claim that the ACA will cause financial ruin is a bit rich, why would the financials be substantially different for states as opposed to the country?

[Maithanet]

On the issue of Republicans Repeal and Ignore health care plan, is there anything stopping them from doing the repeal part in 2013 if they take a slim margin in the Senate and the White House? Could reconciliation be used on a repeal, or does that only apply to new legislation? If reconciliation can't be used, could Congress just strangle it by refusing to allocate any money to ACA?

I guess I'm just not very confident that the Republicans will let this issue go, considering their track record on that.

[Arlingzen Bill]

On a different note - what the hell is this I'm reading about all the right wingers wanting to come to Canada. Do they know our country?!?! Universal health care, legal gay marriage, more money towards education and healthcare than to our military. Aren't we the third ring of hell to those people?

I look forward to the headlines, "American Conservatives deported from Canada" and "Canadians fed up with Illegal Americans, demand fence and tighter border controls."

[TrackerNeil]

On the issue of Republicans Repeal and Ignore health care plan, is there anything stopping them from doing the repeal part in 2013 if they take a slim margin in the Senate and the White House? Could reconciliation be used on a repeal, or does that only apply to new legislation? If reconciliation can't be used, could Congress just strangle it by refusing to allocate any money to ACA?

I guess I'm just not very confident that the Republicans will let this issue go, considering their track record on that.

Your confidence is wise, but repealing the ACA is not so easy. As you pointed out, reconciliation has its place, but what it gains in speed it loses in scope. Only certain measures can be passed by reconciliation, and I don't think the GOP can pass a full repeal that way. They might get rid of the penalty for non-compliance, which would neuter the mandate, but if they do that without getting rid of guaranteed-issue...well, can you say "death spiral"?

Of course, a GOP Senate could simply nuke the filibuster and pass a full repeal that way. Senate majorities are typically unwilling to go this route - someday they may need the filibuster - but I guess if the party feels there is enough political pressure, they'll do it. Even if a repeal is not possible, Romney could use the powers of the presidency to f*ck up the implementation of the law so it works badly.

In any case, liberals' next mission is to reelect Obama, which pretty much ensures the ACA survives a long, long time.

[Robin Of House Hill]

I look forward to the headlines, "American Conservatives deported from Canada" and "Canadians fed up with Illegal Americans, demand fence and tighter border controls."

Why would you want them back here?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Anyone else read this article at "Real Clear Politics":

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/28/the_chief_justices_gambit_114646.html

From the article:

2. Doctrinally, The Federalist Society got everything it wanted.

But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.

Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress’ commerce powers. Right now, liberals are seemingly too busy celebrating their win, and conservatives bemoaning their loss, to realize the significance of this.

None of the liberals’ previous arguments about the upshot of such a ruling are rendered invalid simply because the chief justice decided that this was a tax (and almost everyone agreed that if Congress had just called it a tax, it would have been constitutional). The court just constricted its Commerce Clause jurisprudence; if liberal commentators are correct, they did so by a lot. It doesn’t matter today, but 10 years from now, it will probably be a different story.

The most important aspect of the ruling, however, comes with respect to the spending clause. Seven justices just agreed to real limits on Congress’ ability to attach strings to legislation. This is significant. Until today, these limits were hypothetical, and it was believed that Congress could, for example, remove all Medicaid funding as a punishment for a state’s refusal to comply with the Medicaid expansion. I did not expect the court to rule the way it did here, much less to do so by a 7-2 vote.

:)

[Merentha]

Why would you want them back here?

Be hilarious to have them get a taste of their own fuckwitted policies for once.

edit: I am still conflicted on the ACA. On one hand, finally some semblance of UHC. On the other, its the most backward, pro-corporationist bullshit way I can think of implementing it, and I hope that it won't get in the way of an eventual true single-payer system.

[Seli]

...

But here's possibly the one huge difference: I think over there the government goes a step further in their regulation. With the ACA they are going to do things like guaranteed issue, and community rating, and the medical loss ratio (the thing the industry hated that said 80% of their dollars had to be spent on patient care). Over in Pocketknifeland I believe that they also set the actual prices of procedures and services for private insurance. I do not believe the ACA is going to be doing that for private insurance. They will possibly be making a bunch of pricing decisions in Medicare w/ IPAB, and some of those decisions may certainly impact the privates too, but I think it's a worthwhile distinction to point out.

...

In the Dutch system the insurance companies cannot discount people for their health status, and have to accept anyone to the minimum insurance level. The minimum package is determined by government, the price of drugs in that package as well as treatments are regulated as well. So a level of government influence that is probably needed to keep the system working (a bit, insurance cost keep increasing).

[Fez]

Anyone else read this article at "Real Clear Politics":

http://www.realclear...bit_114646.html

From the article:

:)

Is that accurate? While the four liberals agreed with Roberts that Congress had the authority under taxation, they didn't agree that it didn't under Commerce, and other four's dissent didn't concur with Roberts either. Sure, they obviously also didn't buy the commerce clause agreement, but I don't think anything was really decided about the clause since nothing can be taken as precedent. A future case might, but hopefully Obama wins re-election and either Thomas or Scalia (or both!) will step down/die in the next 4 1/2 years and before it reaches the court.

As for the Medicaid expansion, that's not what was said at all. The justices said that new legislative strings can't be attached to old money (which is weird in its own right) but they specifically stated that new funding can have as many strings as Congress wants to add. And the Feds haven't seriously threatened to remove large amounts of state funding since I think '92 (whenever the last time a state threatened to lower its drinking age to 18), that's not what they do, they just unilaterially issue new agency rules and send the money out the door. Something as big as the Medicaid expansion obviously couldn't be done with a ruling, but the stick in the expansion was never meant to be used, just the very large carrot. Its always about the carrot.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

Hopeing for people to die seems Karmacly uncool to me.

[Shryke]

Fez,

Hopeing for people to die seems Karmacly uncool to me.

It's the only way to play the SCOTUS game though.

[Arthmail]

And people wonder why the economy is going down the shitter.

Because of two terms of Bush and his wars and a bunch of idiotically weak banking and business laws that basically give corporations whatever the fuck they want? That is what you were referring to, correct? Or is it the obsessively oversized expenditure on the army, which is then followed by free give aways of military grade equipment to small town police forces?

You must have meant that. Because as far as i know, no other first world nation in the world does not have universal health care. But you have bullets and bombs so what the fuck, right?

[Fez]

Fez,

Hopeing for people to die seems Karmacly uncool to me.

Both of them were willing for quite a lot of people to die because of what they thought that some slaveowners who died 200 years ago might have thought about something so removed from their experiences that their opinion is completely meaningless, so fuck 'em.

[TerraPrime]

You must have meant that. Because as far as i know, no other first world nation in the world does not have universal health care. But you have bullets and bombs so what the fuck, right?

You will under-estimate us to you own peril, gnome. The U.S. also has a high obesity index. We will crush you. Literally.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Fez,

So, let's toss all the provisions of the Constitution (including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and a ban on the State establishing a religion) because some of the people who negotiated and then wrote it owned slaves? That seems a tad rash to me. That said I've got no beef with a movement to start over.

What I object to own pretending the limits in the Constiution are meaningless. If those limits are all fuzzy then the structural limits are worthless and we really should toss the pretense of a limited government.