View Poll Results: Do You Agree With the Recent Ruling of the Affordable Care Act
- Voters
- 7. You may not vote on this poll
-
Yes
-
No
-
Undecided
-
Indifferent
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 09:55 AM
#1
Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
The Affordable Care Act, aka - obamacare, survives another Supreme Court ruling. In this case the challenge was on a sentence in the law that stated that subsidies could only be granted to qualified individuals through exchanges established by the states. Those opposing obamacare pled a case that this means that those buying insurance through exchanges set up by the federal government don't get subsidies because exchanges must be solely setup by the states. Those in favor of obamacare pled a case that one sentence shouldn't change the entire language of the law and that the intention is for qualified individuals could be subsided by either at the state or federal level.
The reason why this became an issue is because only a little more that a dozen states actually set up an exchange and a justice asked a question on if those living in a state without an exchange could be subsidized. The reason for the lack of participation was because it was either political(conservative states did not want to support obamacare) or because of rollout failures(look to Hawaii for example).
To give some context Jonathan Gruber, the obamacare writer, stated in 2012:
“What’s important to remember politically about Obamacare is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.”
The reason why obamacare survived the ruling was because the court decided that the law was ambiguous and that the IRS acted reasonably in enacting the regulations that it did.
Personally I am upset that the ruling upheld. The original intention of the writer was to let the states decide on if their constituents can be subsidized or not and the sentence clearly states that the states must establish the exchanges. I also find that the government requiring individuals to carry health insurance or else be taxed is a coercion, but that is for a different time and place.
I'm setting up a poll and I hope to hear some feedback from y'all.
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 10:45 AM
#2
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
You set up a poll, and wrote a fair amount, but I'm still not quite clear on what question you are asking. If the court ruled (I must have missed it, as I didn't hear a ruling) then that's that until the next challenge, which may or may not come, so that can't be the question. So, what IS the question?
If you are asking whether or not I think it will survive at all, then I'd have to know what timeframe you are talking about. I believe that it was never intended to be the final word, but just the first step on some road. So, I have no doubt that some part of it will remain and some part of it will change, but as to the timeline...I'm not so sure.
We are already required to pay car insurance or not be allowed to drive (though plenty still do, of course). The difference is usually stated that we are opting in to the priviledge of driving and therefore can be required to pay some cost for that priviledge, which includes insurance. That isn't really different than health care. Very few of us get a choice about needing health insurance (the only exceptions are suicide or rapid, accidental death), and even fewer get to choose which services we will need. If you don't have health insurance, the cost will break you fast. Even with health insurance the cost can break you. At that point, those people don't get turned away, they just get lower quality care paid for by everybody else. A capitalist system would have people get whatever care they could afford. If you can't afford that health care...then go die. We find that repellant, so we have backed into a communist health care system that is papered over to look capitalist. Everybody gets care, and they pay to the best of their ability with everybody else picking up the remainder...with lots of hand wringing along the way. To each according to their need...we have. From each according to their ability...we have that, too, because those of us with insurance pay higher premiums to cover the uninsured obligations of the hospitals and doctors. That's the definition of a communist system.
So, we already have something worse than socialized medicine and we can be certain that the costs will rise due to advances in medicine (when it works, we live longer and therefore will use more, so technological advance will cause increased use if it is effective). The funding mechanism is grossly unfair and inefficient. Anything that improves on that is a step in the right direction.
So, what is the question? Will it survive? In some form, yes, but in this form...not for long.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 11:34 AM
#3
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Pffft! My rates still continue to go up every year while benefits go down... Meanwhile each quarter I have to take a gamble that someone on "the panel" somewhere hasn't suddenly decided that some medication that I take is now a non-formulary uncovered drug. I've had that happen before... more than once... in Jan it was covered, in April, it came off the list. In July it went back on, and something else came off...
-tg
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 12:26 PM
#4
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
You set up a poll, and wrote a fair amount, but I'm still not quite clear on what question you are asking. If the court ruled (I must have missed it, as I didn't hear a ruling) then that's that until the next challenge, which may or may not come, so that can't be the question. So, what IS the question?
Sorry, the question is in the title of the poll and not the content of the post: Do You Agree With the Recent Ruling of the Affordable Care Act?
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
We are already required to pay car insurance or not be allowed to drive (though plenty still do, of course). The difference is usually stated that we are opting in to the priviledge of driving and therefore can be required to pay some cost for that priviledge, which includes insurance. That isn't really different than health care.
-Edit- I had written something about this topic, however because I am currently in the property and casualty insurance industry, I retracted my statement as I do not want it to be perceived that I am speaking on behalf of the company.
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
If you don't have health insurance, the cost will break you fast. Even with health insurance the cost can break you. At that point, those people don't get turned away, they just get lower quality care paid for by everybody else. A capitalist system would have people get whatever care they could afford. If you can't afford that health care...then go die.
What happened before is when my wife was uninsured we went to a state ran hospital. We would wait for 6 hours to see a doctor if the illness was not urgent and then billed based on our income which we would then setup a payment plan and generally pay it off anywhere between 3 - 12 months. Because she did not carry health insurance we expected this! How can you demand the same quality of service if you are not paying for it up front?
Last edited by dday9; Jun 25th, 2015 at 02:26 PM.
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 12:31 PM
#5
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
I'm most upset with how the Justices reached their decision.
To say that there is some ambiguity in the statement that subsidies could only be granted to qualified individuals through exchanges established by the states is preposterous. The decision was not made not because of ambiguity on that particular statement but on the law as a whole, therefore they took the "original intent" of the law to base their decision even though the original intent was stated by the architecture of the law, Gruber.
If this is the new norm then law makers will just start passing very ambiguous laws so that if something comes up that they don't want to change then they can just say that the language was ambiguous and that it needs to be interpreted by the "intent" of the law.
This brings the entire reputability of the Supreme Court into question in my opinion because a biased Justice is able to make a decision that impacts the entirety of a nation. This is not what America stood for and it is certainly not the America that I believe in.
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 03:26 PM
#6
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Yep. And we thought Soylent Green was people, but it turned out corporations are people. Just "more equal than others" without campaign contribution limits.
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 03:32 PM
#7
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by dilettante
Yep. And we thought Soylent Green was people, but it turned out corporations are people. Just "more equal than others" without campaign contribution limits.
This plays into obamacare being coercion from the start. People complain when Hobby Lobby is no longer required to provide contraceptives that terminate a fetus but if you look at it from their stand point, the company was being required to provide something to its employees that went against a moral belief that human life begins a conception and if Hobby Lobby did not comply with providing the contraception then they would be heavily taxed even though they still provided contraceptives that did not terminate a fetus. How can you say that this is not coercion? Not to mention it goes against the universal rights of a human being, right to life.
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 05:01 PM
#8
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Oh poo, I was going to make a witty remark about an earlier post, but was called away to an excellent lunch and now the conversation has moved on, so I will, too.
The government is supposed to provide for certain things for the people. Few people dispute the rationale for a standing army, few people dispute the roll of the government in building interstate highways and other interstate commerce, and there are a few other low hanging fruit. In general, we agree that there is a minimal roll of the government to provide an environment in which we can thrive by seeing to some amount of security from external threats, promotion of trade in certain ways, and the like. As far as I can see, health care is the most fundamental need of every living person. Furthermore, the pay as you go alternative is becoming increasingly absurd. A friend of mine just had a kid (ok, it was a couple years back). When he added up all the bills, it was a bit over $20,000. The child death rate isn't all that high anymore, but it sure was 100 years ago. Back then, life expectancy at birth was only in the 40s. That was due to very high infant mortality. If you made it to about 20 as a man, and 30 as a woman, your life expectancy was up near where it is today. You just had to survive those early years.
Do we want to live in a society where you pay upfront and get what you pay for? The poor lose lots of kids because they can't afford $20,000 for the modern conveniences?
Another example would be me. I went to the hospital a few years back thinking that I might be having a heart attack. It didn't seem likely, but I didn't want to be that guy who said, "it couldn't happen to me." I had mild chest pain radiating into my left shoulder and jaw. As it turns out, it was just stress from thinking about a particularly difficult data problem day and night for a couple months (solved it, too, at which point the pain went away). The cost for that visit was $4000, almost entirely paid for by insurance. You don't have to be particularly poor to not want to spend four grand just to be sure that nothing is happening. I wouldn't have gone at all had I been paying out of pocket, and I'm not poor. That kind of a bill isn't something I'd take lightly. Because I had insurance, I went, and found out that I was just fine. That's a good thing, because I didn't solve the problem for nearly another two months, and the pain came and went until I had the solution and the code was tested (I'm telling you, this coding will be the death of me). A poor person wouldn't have gone. An uninsured person wouldn't have gone. Since it proved to be nothing, perhaps I shouldn't have gone, but I'm sure glad I had the opportunity.
Are we really a society that will say, "too bad you're poor and can't afford health care." Or even, "too bad you work in some fashion that you aren't given insurance by your employer." Those people get to choose between going off and dying, or going broke. Meanwhile, those of us who do get health insurance through our employer get paid less because we are subsidising whatever emergency care (the most expensive kind) is mandated to be provided by the hospitals.
I say that health care is a fundamental roll for the government just as much as the maintenance of an army. It fits into the rolls we generally agree the government should provide, and a reasonable purpose for taxes. I'm opposed to the current system, I'm opposed to the way it was before, but we are possibly moving in the right direction. Well, at least we are moving, and the way it was sucked. It can get worse, but it already was when we weren't moving in any direction.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 05:26 PM
#9
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
The nature of this thread was not meant to be if you agree with obamacare or not, it was meant to be if you agree with the court ruling today however with it heading in this direction I will say a few words in response to your post.
The example that you gave with the poor losing kids and yourself deciding to go to the hospital even though everything was fine was not applicable before obamacare at least not if you went to a state ran hospital like my wife did while she was uninsured. Let us assume for a second that it was my wife that had the baby uninsured: We would have went to the state ran hospital(not the private hospital which cost more), she would have had her baby all the while not being treated as nice as we would have if we went to a private hospital(again because it would cost more), and then we would be setup on a payment plan based upon our income. This exact scenario occurred with two of my friends with their baby and they paid their total bill after 18 months of about $120/month. Side note - it is crazy because I was literally talking with him about this the other day!
The way that the health care system was before was far from perfect, however it was much better than what we have now and I believe it will get worse in the coming years when it is fully implemented. On the cost aspect, President Obama is happy to remind people that health care cost are slowing at the slowest rate in 50 years, however he conveniently leaves out that the reason it is slowing is because insured's are switching to a higher deductible plan or are reducing coverages to compensate for the would be rate increase which translates to higher out of pocket cost then before. On the treatment aspect, it is too early for any effects to be felt however in the coming years I am willing to bet that doctors will be less inclined to provide the same care that they do now, not because they don't want to provide as good of care but because they will have less time to have a personal touch with their patients.
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 06:49 PM
#10
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
I'm not sure if we have any state run hospitals, so I'm not quite sure how they work. Of course, nobody understands hospital bills, anyways, not even the hospitals. Two hospitals in the same area might charge wildly different amounts for the same procedure. The billing is byzantine and getting worse.
Why the rise in costs is slowing is a matter for debate. I doubt there is one single reason.
My basic view is that health care has got to bankrupt us all, eventually. Consider another case: A different couple I know had a terrible pregnancy. Up to the 1940s, baby and mother would have died and that would have been the end of the costs for them both. This would have been cheap, too, because the best the doctors could have done would have been very little, and therefore pretty cheap. By the 1960s, health care had improved and it is quite likely that the mother might have lived, but the baby would still have died. This would have cost more, because the measures taken to keep the mother alive would have involved more people, more resources (technology, drugs, blood, etc.), and so forth. By the 1980s, the mother probably would have lived, and there would have been a slim chance that the baby would live. This would have cost a LOT, because lots of cutting edge technology would have been brought to bear. However, the pregnancy happened in the last decade (the kid isn't 10, yet, but nearly there), and both mother and daughter are doing fine. This cost a HUGE amount, several times the value of their house, and more than they would be able to pay off in their lifetimes if they put twice their mortgage payment into it each month. Furthermore, since both mother and daughter lived, they will wrack up more medical bills of one sort or another.
Another point is that, for most people, 80% of your lifetime health payments are made in the last two years of your life. You have zero chance of paying this off, so you could go off and die somewhere, but only if you know that the fight is futile, and even then the bulk of our society would oppose letting you do that (unless you are poor, in which case nobody gives a damn). As technology increases, those heavy payments will become increasingly effective, such that it might be the last three years, or five years, or some greater extent of your life.
Pay as you go is already hopeless except for young, relatively healthy, people for whom things go well. Pay as you go is absurd for older people, because few can. We won't kill them off, either. As technology progresses, this will only get worse. Even if costs for procedures was capped at a fixed amount for each procedure and never allowed to rise, not even for inflation, advances in technology will keep prolonging life and therefore keep increasing the total amount each of us could pay for healthcare in our lifetimes. At some point, the total amount the average person would expect to pay out under that fanciful scenario, must exceed the amount they will be expected to earn in their lifetimes. That will be an interesting day.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 25th, 2015, 06:57 PM
#11
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
As to the ruling, it didn't surprise me any. I'm a bit surprised at the breakdown of the ruling, as I thought that at least one of the three most conservative judges would have sided with the majority on this one. After all, they are all about original intent, and the intent in this case was clear, as the Chief Justice said in the majority opinion. Furthermore, no analyst I heard from would have been surprised. Unlike interpretations of the constitution written by people long dead, the people who wrote and voted on this are still with us, and can be asked for their opinion. It may well be that somebody slipped a poison pill into the legislation with this wording, but it's more likely to have been an accident.
The bill was a monster in size and scope. To let four words, poorly chosen though they might be, scupper the works, would go against the way the conservative wing has been ruling for years. That they went against their own words in this case surprised me more than the outcome of the ruling.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 03:06 AM
#12
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
The nature of this thread was not meant to be if you agree with obamacare or not, it was meant to be if you agree with the court ruling today however with it heading in this direction I will say a few words in response to your post.
I am not going to get into the discussion on how your Healthcare should be run, because if you guys think your system is communist god knows what you think of ours.
What i will comment on is the ruling itself (which after all was ddays question).
I would have been very surprised if the outcome hadn't been to uphold the ruling.
American law is different to English law in that in American law there is precedence that the Intent of a law is more important than the meaning. I had to look this up btw but this a link to that case
If the same case had been held in an English court system then the ruling may very well have not been upheld.
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 08:50 AM
#13
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
The intent of the law was for states to run their own exchanges and if they don't then their constituents do not get the tax credits. I don't know how any more unambiguous that can be. In fact I quoted Jonathan Gruber, but here is the video of him in 2012 directly answering this question:
https://youtu.be/34rttqLh12U
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 10:13 AM
#14
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
The intent of the law was for states to run their own exchanges
I was talking more about intent of whole law not not a particular paragraph.
You may not like the law, which is fair enough, but as far as the American legal system goes it would have been difficult for different decision to have been reached.
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 10:44 AM
#15
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
The intent of the language was to push states to create their own exchanges, which is what Gruber states in the video. He also states that the politics can get ugly around this. He wasn't saying that you can just opt out, he was saying that, if the state didn't set up an exchange the citizens would still pay the tax, they just wouldn't get anything for it. Frankly, I don't think that was what very many people expected the law to do. I'd guess that conservatives thought that they could simply not set up an exchange and opt out. Not just opt out of getting benefits, but also opt out of paying taxes, which is explicitly not the case according to Gruber. He may have thought that they'd pay for no benefit, and that would push states to create exchanges, but he only supplied language for the bill. One small part of sausage in the whole grinder.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 10:47 AM
#16
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
I was reading a comment in the video I posted of Gruber and one of the guys mentioned when Nancy Pelosi said
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
This indicated that the bill was too massive and complicated for the congressmen to read the entirety of the bill.
Once the bill was passed, they didn't like the fact that the architecture's intention was to have state ran exchanges and if a qualified individual did not live in a state with an exchange setup then they would not get tax credits. Now they are changing the bill at their own will, it is not right.
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 12:14 PM
#17
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Most of the significant bills are too large for anybody to read unless they spend their entire time at it. Dodd-Frank would take months to read (and you'd be well rested by the end of it), the PATRIOT act was the same way, and so was the Affordable Care act. There are all kinds of things stuffed into those nooks and cranies. For example, Title IX, which has greatly improved the lot of women in college and elsewhere, was stuck into the Civil Rights act to try to kill it. Some of the sourthern opponents of the act thought that support would dry up if rights were extended to women.
Interestingly, I heard an interview with a guy who had created an "Exchange in a Box" package that states could adopt to quickly set up an exchange in case the ruling had gone the other way. I'm not surprised at the ruling, the intent was clear. We don't follow the letter of most any law, and they are often written vaguely. Look at the Second Amendment. Had that been written clearly, there wouldn't be any debate, but it's actually two different statements in one, so we end up with a debate. Much legislation is also written as a general directive without specifics. The executive branch department responsible for implementing the law then has to turn the generalities of the legislation into rules that are what gets enforced.
That's life.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 12:33 PM
#18
Lively Member
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
I have only had the chance to skim over the opinions and read a few articles analyzing the ruling but it seems like the reasoning behind this ruling is every bit as convoluted as the idea that this monstrosity will save me $2500/year (it didn't) and I could keep my current plan (I couldn't).
I do not like it when my government repeatedly lies to me and passes laws in secret without even allowing a debate on their merits. But that's the new reality in Washington. What frightens me is the number of people who are perfectly fine with this abuse of power as long as it's their side making these laws.
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is temporary. Glory is forever." - Robert Craig "Evel" Knievel
“Leave me alone, I know what I’m doing.” - Kimi Raikkonen
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 12:34 PM
#19
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
But what I do not understand about this whole mess actually goes in line with a point that you had given:
Unlike interpretations of the constitution written by people long dead, the people who wrote and voted on this are still with us, and can be asked for their opinion.
The man who wrote this gave his opinion and gave a very clear and concise answer.
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 01:44 PM
#20
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
No, I do not agree. While it would put people in jeopardy of loosing their insurance due to an inability to afford it (aka. back to square 1, as far as they are concerned) the justices ruled on that point, rather than the point of law. This sets a dangerous precedent - ruling on cases where the right outcome is desired and the intent of the law rather than what the law actually states.
Further, they have direct knowledge that the law was specifically written to deny subsidies to those outside state run exchanges; both the intent and law are clear on that issue. The justices ruled on what they believed the intent should have been.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
"There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk.
"Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."
-
Jun 26th, 2015, 01:54 PM
#21
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by homer13j
...
I do not like it when my government repeatedly lies to me and passes laws in secret without even allowing a debate on their merits. But that's the new reality in Washington. What frightens me is the number of people who are perfectly fine with this abuse of power as long as it's their side making these laws.
And this is the real problem. Are we OK to give Obama free reign to make executive decisions on things that may (or may not) benefit The People, even though he has no legal authority to do so? We are not assigning that authority to Obama, but the office of the President - be they Republican or Democrat (or other).
How many people would complain that Obama rules that we each and every one of us gets $500 a week from the government to live on (ignore the numbers hiding behind the curtain) should Obama, alone, be allowed to make such a ruling?. If we allow Obama such leeway, then we must allow every President such leeway. Since, by definition (sic), Republicans are evil and want to steal from the poor, we must allow a Republican President to make the same decision and leeway to take $500 from everyones paycheck, because the government is short of cash.
The same goes for the justices and congress; as well as each department of the government. Each 'branch' should be necessarily limited in scope and capability to prevent these abuses of power.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
"There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk.
"Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."
-
Jun 27th, 2015, 04:01 PM
#22
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
I gotta say that I'm impressed that you folks read that darn ruling. It's only 47 pages of legal reasoning, and while it's well written, that's still a LOAD to get through. Frankly, I only read the first few pages of it (basically just the synopsis), and that was bad enough. It would take me hours to get through the whole thing. To fully understand it, I'd probably have to read the district court ruling and the 4th circuit court ruling, as well, since they appeared to use different reasoning to come to the same conclusion. Furthermore, I don't know the cases referenced in just the synopsis alone, so I'd just have to take their word for them as to the guidance they give on interpretation.
Still, having read the small amount that I did, the decision seems neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. They have guidance (which I don't really understand, not knowing the relevant case) as to how they are to read the law, and I felt that case they made that the narrow reading of four words was ambiguous when put in context was compelling. To argue that they must not put those words in context, but take the word of some architect of the legislation (only a member of congress can bring legislation to the floor, but they do often rely on others to do the writing) isn't actually legal. It's only Congress that can pass the law and only Congress whoes opinion matters on what the law means. If a body of a few hundred, easily distracted, people focused largely on fund raising, aren't clear on what they are doing, that really doesn't matter. The Supreme Court can't then turn to the lobbyist who wrote the bill and ask them to clarify what they wanted. The ruling itself mentions that several parts of the bill were written "inartfully", but that's still what Congress passed.
In the end, three different courts reached the same conclusion, though apparently each on somewhat different grounds or with somewhat different readings. That means there's enough material out there in those rulings to anesthetize the entire state of Texas. If there parts of the ruling(s) that you disagree with, could you point them out so that I don't have to read the whole thing?
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 05:38 AM
#23
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Still, having read the small amount that I did, the decision seems neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. They have guidance (which I don't really understand, not knowing the relevant case) as to how they are to read the law, and I felt that case they made that the narrow reading of four words was ambiguous when put in context was compelling. To argue that they must not put those words in context, but take the word of some architect of the legislation (only a member of congress can bring legislation to the floor, but they do often rely on others to do the writing) isn't actually legal.
Well put Shaggy, that was my point also
putting aside the actual act itself and whether you agree with it or not, from a purely legal perspective and considering the prior precedence in US law its seems to me the judges came to the only conclusion they could.
And this is the real problem. Are we OK to give Obama free reign to make executive decisions on things that may (or may not) benefit The People
Could you elaborate? i don't see how Obama on his own could introduce this act? surely it was with the backing of his party??
If your talking about executive decisions in general then surely this is nothing new hasn't the American President (whoever they are) always had this power of making executive decisions ?
Please Mark your Thread "Resolved", if the query is solved & Rate those who have helped you
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 06:44 AM
#24
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
If your talking about executive decisions in general then surely this is nothing new hasn't the American President (whoever they are) always had this power of making executive decisions ?
Ronald Reagan, for instance, issued 381 executive orders. Through almost six years in office, Obama has issued 193.
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 07:02 AM
#25
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by TysonLPrice
Ronald Reagan, for instance, issued 381 executive orders. Through almost six years in office, Obama has issued 193.
Reagan isn't president right now, and executive orders have always been in the purview of the president on items that are limited by what can be applied as executive orders. Obama has also issues executive actions which have no place being such (even though they carry no legal weight) and uses it as a political maneuver to demonize the opponents.
I think your number are incorrect, but even so; it is the content of the orders and actions that are under question, not the quantity.
Anyway, my response was to the indication that the government it doing things secretly, and without due process, that is an issue - allowing presidents to make unilateral actions on major issues is a huge problem. Making executive orders to clarify the existing roles of government agencies is the purpose of executive orders.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
"There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk.
"Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 07:06 AM
#26
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Don't try to reason with actual numbers.
I say that half in jest because in the end, it's not really about the number of EOs issues. A good deal of those are likely (on Reagan's side at least) are Presidential Pardons that are signed in the last few weeks of the Presidency. What's important are WHAT those EOs actually are. Heck, you could have a President simply sign one in eight years... if it's a pardon, no one will notice. But, if it says that we're all suddenly supposed to start driving on the opposite side of the road... then it becomes a big deal. Then it won't matter that the President only ever issued one EO, because no one will care.
And that's what happening (and to some degree hurting) with the current Administration. It's not the number of EOs being issued, but the scope of those EOs and their impact on the country in general.
-tg
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 07:15 AM
#27
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
Reagan isn't president right now, and executive orders have always been in the purview of the president on items that are limited by what can be applied as executive orders. Obama has also issues executive actions which have no place being such (even though they carry no legal weight) and uses it as a political maneuver to demonize the opponents.
I think your number are incorrect, but even so; it is the content of the orders and actions that are under question, not the quantity.
Anyway, my response was to the indication that the government it doing things secretly, and without due process, that is an issue - allowing presidents to make unilateral actions on major issues is a huge problem. Making executive orders to clarify the existing roles of government agencies is the purpose of executive orders.
Where did I say a single thing about any of that? I was merely buttressing the point"
If your talking about executive decisions in general then surely this is nothing new hasn't the American President (whoever they are) always had this power of making executive decisions ?
If you want to change the subject a bit and discuss this I'd be more than happy to but it will include my thoughts on why Obama had to go that route versus trying to deal with a House of Representatives, dominated by republicans, that wasted around six years of valuable time playing their idiotic games...
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 09:06 AM
#28
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
If you want to change the subject a bit and discuss this I'd be more than happy to but it will include my thoughts on why Obama had to go that route versus trying to deal with a House of Representatives, dominated by republicans, that wasted around six years of valuable time playing their idiotic games...
We can't slow down businesses or put our economy at risk with government shutdowns or fiscal showdowns. We can't put the security of families at risk by taking away their health insurance or unraveling the new rules on Wall Street or refighting past battles on immigration when we've got to fix a broken system.
And if a bill comes to my desk that tries to do any of these things, I will veto it. It will have earned my veto. - Obama's State of the Union Address 2015
There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran. But new sanctions passed by this Congress at this moment in time will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails, alienating America from its allies, making it harder to maintain sanctions and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn't make sense.
That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. - Obama's State of the Union Address 2015
I actually think that the House is doing a much better job of helping President Obama right now on matters such as the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement(under Republican control) and even back then considering how the House and Senate acted during 2008... Or is that just short-term memory?
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 09:13 AM
#29
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by dday9
We can't slow down businesses or put our economy at risk with government shutdowns or fiscal showdowns. We can't put the security of families at risk by taking away their health insurance or unraveling the new rules on Wall Street or refighting past battles on immigration when we've got to fix a broken system.
And if a bill comes to my desk that tries to do any of these things, I will veto it. It will have earned my veto. - Obama's State of the Union Address 2015
There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran. But new sanctions passed by this Congress at this moment in time will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails, alienating America from its allies, making it harder to maintain sanctions and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn't make sense.
That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress. - Obama's State of the Union Address 2015
I actually think that the House is doing a much better job of helping President Obama right now on matters such as the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement(under Republican control) and even back then considering how the House and Senate acted during 2008... Or is that just short-term memory?
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 09:15 AM
#30
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Yeah, that's short term memory. Only one positive action? Surely there is more than one time that Congress worked with the President in this term...but I can't think of any others, either.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 09:17 AM
#31
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yeah, that's short term memory. Only one positive action? Surely there is more than one time that Congress worked with the President in this term...but I can't think of any others, either.
They, republicans house and senate, can't even agree amongst themselves
Please remember next time...elections matter!
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 10:00 AM
#32
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Regardless of which way you lean politically, it appears as though this thread is as divided in the poll as Americans are in general on the issue.
-
Jun 29th, 2015, 11:10 AM
#33
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Poll how many read the whole ruling. I'm still digesting the synopsis, and let me tell you...it's keeping me regular. That's some serious chewing involved with just those first few pages. A skimming of the rest suggests that the whole thing is a doozy to read (or a snoozy, I suppose). It's not as bad as the ruling I read before that one, though (which was mercifully short). At least the language and writing was fairly accessible in this one and there doesn't appear to be pages of citations of legal precedents for every element of the decision. That may be how it has to be.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
-
Jun 30th, 2015, 09:25 AM
#34
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Poll how many read the whole ruling. I'm still digesting the synopsis, and let me tell you...it's keeping me regular. That's some serious chewing involved with just those first few pages. A skimming of the rest suggests that the whole thing is a doozy to read (or a snoozy, I suppose). It's not as bad as the ruling I read before that one, though (which was mercifully short). At least the language and writing was fairly accessible in this one and there doesn't appear to be pages of citations of legal precedents for every element of the decision. That may be how it has to be.
I guess you haven't read too many judicial documents. It's dry reading, but you actually bring up a good point: over the years, the reliance on legal precedents has diminished dramatically - or the important ones have been deliberately pared down to make it accessible to the more discerning internet reader.
But are there legal precedents that their decisions are based on? It seems not, and that's a problem (actually, there were a few; very few).
The ruling highlights - or down plays, depending on your interpretation of the interpretation - the fact that key parts of the Affordable Care Act were crafted behind closed doors without consideration of congress. This led to sloppy writing and language. Because of this, it is argued, the wording to exclude Federal exchange beneficiaries from State exchange benefits and subsidies was also sloppy.
Further, the 'context' referred to in the ruling refers, significantly, to the objective of the affordable care act, itself. At least twice the ruling notes a 'death spiral' and so describes a failing of the ACA should the decision fall the other way - denying Federal exchange recipient subsidies.
I think this describes the whole fallacy that the namesake Affordable Care Act is: it only generates 'affordable care' by giving subsidies to those who cannot afford (sic) healthcare.
"Ok, my response to that is pending a Google search" - Bucky Katt.
"There are two types of people in the world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets." - Unk.
"Before you can 'think outside the box' you need to understand where the box is."
-
Jun 30th, 2015, 11:20 AM
#35
Re: Affordable Care Act Survives Attack
Originally Posted by SJWhiteley
The ruling highlights - or down plays, depending on your interpretation of the interpretation - the fact that key parts of the Affordable Care Act were crafted behind closed doors without consideration of congress. This led to sloppy writing and language. Because of this, it is argued, the wording to exclude Federal exchange beneficiaries from State exchange benefits and subsidies was also sloppy.
It doesn't just highlight it. The ruling states explicitly that large parts were "inartfully" written. That really is the core problem, too, though I don't feel that this act is as bad as Dodd-Frank in this regard. This seems to be a trend: Create a monster bill that is so large that nobody has any possibility of reading the whole thing in time for the vote. At best, a Congressman could get a bunch of aids to each read a part of it, but then nobody would be fully able to synthesize the whole, so comprehensive understanding of what they are voting on is precluded. It's hard to believe that it isn't done that way by design. Lobbyists can litter such bills with all kinds of interesting goodies.
I'd say that is one of the deplorable modern trends we are seeing in Congress.
My usual boring signature: Nothing
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|