The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Hmmm....PPACA was passed a few years ago....then I thought we had an election recently which gave the voters the opportunity to render ultimate judgement on the effort...

How did that go again? The basic premise of conservatism in late 2012 seems to be that everybody else is stupid and if they only knew what was in the law they'd be taking to the streets with pitchforks and torches. Did you ever stop and think that maybe people do in fact want to work with the new law, and about 20% of those disapproving of it are because they don't think it went far enough?

Just, you know, food for thought given recent events.

There were some smarts in the ACA legislation, like deferring most of the pain until after the 2012 election the 2014 congressionals. ACA seems like a good idea on paper, but I strongly believe that the American public was allowed only to see the tip of the iceberg. It's the hidden stuff you don't know is there until you actually come across it that is the killer.

[Rover]

There were some smarts in the ACA legislation, like deferring most of the pain until after the 2012 election the 2014 congressionals. ACA seems like a good idea on paper, but I strongly believe that the American public was allowed only to see the tip of the iceberg. It's the hidden stuff you don't know is there until you actually come across it that is the killer.

My thoughts are always that if anything needs fixing, just fix it and go from there. What drives me nuts is the need of some people, particularly if they're elected officials, of relitigating an issue that's already been decided. Its the law, so work with it but don't waste time denying that the law will take effect. I would be like if Fishy was a governor somewhere, refusing to do anything because of some ridiculous notion that conservatives will find a way to overturn the law even though they just got pasted in the last election and the SCOTUS upheld it. You and I debating this is fun and worthwhile but it ends there. Having idiots actually making decisions in govt with the same "I don't like it so I'm not going to do anything like a spoiled brat" is a lot more problematic.

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

My thoughts are always that if anything needs fixing, just fix it and go from there. What drives me nuts is the need of some people, particularly if they're elected officials, of relitigating an issue that's already been decided. Its the law, so work with it but don't waste time denying that the law will take effect. I would be like if Fishy was a governor somewhere, refusing to do anything because of some ridiculous notion that conservatives will find a way to overturn the law even though they just got pasted in the last election and the SCOTUS upheld it. You and I debating this is fun and worthwhile but it ends there. Having idiots actually making decisions in govt with the same "I don't like it so I'm not going to do anything like a spoiled brat" is a lot more problematic.

The conscious clause (or lack thereof) needs to be heard.

But liberals are more like to go to court than to trust the legislature to get what they want.

[Rover]

The conscious clause (or lack thereof) needs to be heard.

But liberals are more like to go to court than to trust the legislature to get what they want.

I would say that's true of older liberals from an earlier era. With an activist court from the 50's to the 70's I can see how liberals came to rely on court action to achieve what they wanted. In my lifetime I felt they got very lazy relying on this really up until the late 90's-early 2000's.

However, for those of us younger than that, having seen the courts not reign in the approximately 1 billion lawsuits against the Clinton admin from pretty much every righty org in the country and then onto Bush v Gore, I don't get the sense that's true anymore. We'd rather go through legislation with one exception, gay marriage, and even that tact is changing. Recall that the PPACA effort was a herculean task to get through Congress.

[Foxton]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Recall that the PPACA effort was a herculean task to get through Congress.

No it wasn't! Don't you remember your revised history? They rammed that through like Clinton into an intern!

[busterman62]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

No it wasn't! Don't you remember your revised history? They rammed that through like Clinton into an intern!

A shinning example of bipartisanship at it's finest.

[sagard]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

A shinning example of bipartisanship at it's finest.

That mistake by Reps will haunt us for a long time. By only trying to delay until they could take control of the house in '10, they gave no input and we got stuck with this unknown and unpredictable bill.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

That mistake by Reps will haunt us for a long time. By only trying to delay until they could take control of the house in '10, they gave no input and we got stuck with this unknown and unpredictable bill.

That's because they're more worried about their image than they are executing ideas.

[joecct]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

That mistake by Reps will haunt us for a long time. By only trying to delay until they could take control of the house in '10, they gave no input and we got stuck with this unknown and unpredictable bill.

If a bill is so bad that it can't get a single vote from the minority, it should cause the majority to think that maybe it's not a good bill after all.

Apparently Harry can kill the filibuster by a simple majority vote at the first session of the 112th Congress. The Senate votes to suspend the rules via a majority vote (rules say 2/3 to kill the filibuster), then passes the kill with a simple majority vote. That's going to go over well. The Senate, which is in gridlock now, is going to look like an LA freeway in rush hour. Nothing is getting through b/c there will be no more unanimous consents. Think, Harry, think (if he can).

Will that consequence be MORE executive orders (government by decree)?

That's not the way to run a railroad, even a high speed one.

[Foxton]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

If a bill is so bad that it can't get a single vote from the minority, it should cause the majority to think that maybe it's not a good bill after all.

Maybe if the minority had said why it was so bad instead of how it was the socialism, nazi-america, end of capitalism, killing old people, that minority might have gotten listened to. Or if the minority leader hadn't given up the game and admitted that their top priority was to ensure Obama only had one term.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

When I first read Justice Roberts ruling "upholding" PPACA even though he found the mandate unconstitutional, I told people that it looked like a Trojan Horse to me: that what Roberts really did was undermine the law by making it unworkable. After all, if there is no mandate, there is merely a choice: either you pay a tax or you buy insurance (Roberts actually described the situation in exactly those terms). Since the tax was lower than premiums, the law could not possibly work; either the tax would have to be increased substantially or the law would collapse.

I pointed to this section of his ruling as evidence. He was telling Obama to go perform an auto-erotic act:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

Now, it looks like a few prominent conservative legal scholars are seeing the same thing:

The court's determination to preserve ObamaCare through "interpretation" has exacerbated the law's original flaws to the point that it has become palpably unworkable. By transforming the penalties for failing to comply with the law's requirements into a "tax," the court has given the public a green light to ignore ObamaCare's requirements when it is economically beneficial. Law-abiding individuals, who might otherwise have complied with the law's expensive purchase mandate to avoid being subjected to financial penalties, can simply now choose to pay a tax and not sign up for coverage. There is certainly no stigma attached to simply paying a tax, and noncompliance with the law's other requirements—such as those imposed on employers—is arguably made more attractive on the same basis.

If enough states fail to set up state-run exchanges, then what? The Feds are not prepared and probably not capable of setting up and running the exchanges themselves.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

[unofan]

When I first read Justice Roberts ruling "upholding" PPACA even though he found the mandate unconstitutional, I told people that it looked like a Trojan Horse to me: that what Roberts really did was undermine the law by making it unworkable. After all, if there is no mandate, there is merely a choice: either you pay a tax or you buy insurance (Roberts actually described the situation in exactly those terms). Since the tax was lower than premiums, the law could not possibly work; either the tax would have to be increased substantially or the law would collapse.

I pointed to this section of his ruling as evidence. He was telling Obama to go perform an auto-erotic act:




Now, it looks like a few prominent conservative legal scholars are seeing the same thing:




If enough states fail to set up state-run exchanges, then what? The Feds are not prepared and probably not capable of setting up and running the exchanges themselves.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

Because everyone will stop getting insurance to save money. Never mind they could not carry insurance today with $0 in tax liability. Yet I don't exactly see a rush of people dropping insurance

[Rover]

If a bill is so bad that it can't get a single vote from the minority, it should cause the majority to think that maybe it's not a good bill after all.

Apparently Harry can kill the filibuster by a simple majority vote at the first session of the 112th Congress. The Senate votes to suspend the rules via a majority vote (rules say 2/3 to kill the filibuster), then passes the kill with a simple majority vote. That's going to go over well. The Senate, which is in gridlock now, is going to look like an LA freeway in rush hour. Nothing is getting through b/c there will be no more unanimous consents. Think, Harry, think (if he can).

Will that consequence be MORE executive orders (government by decree)?

That's not the way to run a railroad, even a high speed one.

You've got a far better view of the Republican in Congress than myself and the vast, vast majority of Americans. I take them as being whiny dinosaurs who don't like the fact that Reagan is no longer President even though he's been dead for almost 10 years, and are committed to obstructing ideas that they even once supported (immigration reform for example). Too bad if it got rammed down their throats.

Fishy, I hate to see you continually get humilated out here, and I think its time for you to think of the children and how there's going to be a permanent record on the internet of you getting embarassed regularly. The feds don't have the ability to set up exchanges? Ooookaaaayyyy...you just go on believing that Skippy!.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

...[to paraphrase, said in his best pedantic pontificating voice: while there are plenty of examples of a double negative being used to represent a positive, we never see a double positive being used to represent a negative]...

yeah, right.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Subscribed because who cares why?