(Click to enlarge.)
ADDED: It's funny, these websites are obviously trying to draw traffic, so they are imagining a need and serving it. These writers — especially the headline writers — must think there are a lot of potential readers who are upset and in need of soothing. The writers themselves may not be experiencing any sort of panic or anxiety. They may simply be grinding out the next damn thing that one does in the daily enterprise of grabbing eyeballs. The shamefully dishonest!!!! enterprise of grabbing eyeballs.
Posts
43 comments:
I grew up with dumb Libs making the "oh c'mon you know" argument.
You know what they meant when they wrote the law, you know. You are being a devil's advocate, purposely obtuse here you know.
Ignorance of State/Federal distinctions are a valid premise for the "oh c'mon you know" defense.
Any after effects will NOT be considered, at least in public.
Oh c'mon you know Obama's crony millionaires would rather incinerate the country than allow a tax dollar spent wisely: there will be no goring of their ox now nor anytime soon.
You know we can make Roberts see our point of view to the extent we will make him throw out his original majority opinion and replace it will an opposite-concluding majority opinion.
You know.
"The Supreme Court simply isn't going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people in order to teach Congress a lesson about grammar." Ezra Klein
Hey Ezra, I don't think you understand what "grammar" means. Since the language in Obamacare seems too complex for you, let me make some simple examples to clear things up:
"Ezra Klein is a cunt." has no incorrect grammar.
"Ezra Klein are a cunt." does.
Legislation? Just words. They can mean whatever the democrats want them to mean at the time.
If they didn't have low standards...
This particular issue (whether the law can give subsidies to people in states without state exchanges) won't likely be settled until the Supreme Court looks at it. But for the Obamaphiles to win they need to be able to convince the justices that the law as written can be directly contradicted so long as the executive branch believes that the drafters' intent is obvious. If Obama wins this, it sets a dangerous precedent and this will depend on just how far justices are willing to go to keep the ACA running. Sadly nothing surprises me about these hacks anymore.
And if Obama is thwarted on this issue, there are three possibilities. First, Congress could amend the law though that's unlikely unless Democrats win both houses or popular support for amending the law becomes overwhelming. Second, the governments in states that have no state exchanges get enough pressure from their voters who want subsidies that they quickly form state exchanges so that the subsidy money is available. Third, neither fix happens and insurance costs rise in those states, driving healthy people out of the market and creating the feared death spiral.
The lesson in this? Maybe Congress should read their legislation before imposing it on the country.
If the actual words of the law aren't as important as their "obvious intent" then why the hell does the thing have 418,779 of them?
Hey, here's an idea: if the legislation doesn't say what it was meant to say, then amend it to say "Federal or state exchange". Bam, the courts are happy and everything keeps on rolling.
But instead we have to treat it as a judicial spectacle, some sort of nightmare. Why? Seriously, why?
Why is there not a single senior legislative supporter of this initiative not standing up saying: "It's a fair critique, the language isn't crystal clear and did not follow the intentions of congress. We'll issue an amendment to resolve the issue."
"Brando said...
The lesson in this? Maybe Congress should read their legislation before imposing it on the country."
Regardless of what that Pelosi said the language in the bill was known by the writers and put in there purposely. It was meant to compliance by the states. It failed. Miserably. So this isn't a case of bad process. But bad product.
Amazing how these people believe laws should only mean what they think they mean despite what is written in the actual law (“Obamacare says what? Just ignore it and Sebelius will write a regulation to cover for us.”) but are unable to realize what happens if they attempt that same approach in real life. (“Yes I know my Beemer payments are overdue, but that doesn’t mean you can tow – WAIT, COME BACK WITH MY CAR!”)
"The Supreme Court simply isn't going to rip insurance from tens of millions of people in order to teach Congress a lesson about grammar." Ezra Klein
Holly Hobby Lobby, Batman! Now that's funny.
We have at most less than ten million total signed up through the exchanges both state and federal. Of those, the ruling affects only the federal exchange. And of those only those receiving subsidies. Subsidies, not the insurance itself. Not all people losing their subsidy will drop their insurance, particularly if they purchased it to cover an ongoing health problem.
But Ezra thinks that it will "...rip insurance from tens of millions..."
Tree, you treat this as an honest mistake instead of the giant game of chicken it is.
They didn't include non deliverability to dare judges to strike down any part of it. They included the state exchanges to dare governors to not get on board.
Every word is intentional.
I hope ObamaCare isn't ripped from millions of people. Republicans like their ObamaCare!
The nut of the problem is that Reid and Obama don't want to negotiate amending language and probable other outrageously costly aspects of Obamacare with Republicans.
Reid knows before the November election he doesn't want to allow endangered members to vote on amendments with the Republicans either. He would lose the votes.
Let's say that you live in a state with a state exchange, you still have Obamacare right? Those states are the ones that support Obamacare.
Let's say your state doesn't support Obamacare and so doesn't have a state exchange. You're not eligible for the tax subsidy you would otherwise get. But that could be easily fixed by your state legislature.
" But for the Obamaphiles to win they need to be able to convince the justices that the law as written can be directly contradicted so long as the executive branch believes that the drafters' intent is obvious"
The justices already know why the law reads as it does. The "Cornhusker kickback" is mentioned in the decision. The full DC Circuit, packed with Obama appointees courtesy of the Reid "Nuclear option" will overturn the decision and then it was go to the USSC, probably after the new Congress is sworn in.
That sets the stage for a grand compromise with the law amended in multiple ways and sent to Obama who can then veto the changes.
I think it was Krauthammer who said that Congress (Harry Reid that is) meant exactly what the law says; they just never dreamed any state would have the nerve to refuse to set up a state exchange, since they expected (and Reid still does) the law to be wildly popular among the unwashed.
If the Supreme Court uses legislative "intent" to decide this case when the record is so extraordinarily thin -- because of the deliberate tactical efforts of Democrat supporters of the law -- then the rule of law is well and truly abrogated. And I will feel no obligation to follow laws, a la the Polish Solidarity Movement.
Here's a though experiment:
If the Republicans were smart ( work with me here, I said it was a just a though experiment ) what could they include in a bill that would fix this issue, look good to the electorate, and either advance their cause or make the Democrat controlled Senate reject it?
For example they extend the subsidies to the federal exchange, plus repeal the individual mandate. How about removing the limit on the difference between what young and old people pay ( phrased in terms of not overcharging the young just to subsidize wealthier older people?
What else?
Mr. Mahal said: "I hope ObamaCare isn't ripped from millions of people."
As opposed to say ... stuffing this albatross our throats.
So there was this vicious fight to pass the law and a big f'n deal of a ceremony to sign the damn thing, but what's actually in the law doesn't matter? It's as if these clowns were just voting for the idea of healthcare reform, not an actual bill. If that's the case, we might as well send them all home because by their logic the president could just interpret any bill to justify any policy.
Wait. Is the Left really getting ready to ask SCOTUS to rule on this based on a form of Originalism?
Oh, irony!
Garage mahal wrote -
"I hope ObamaCare isn't ripped from millions of people. Republicans like their ObamaCare!"
Tens of millions, garage, tens of millions. If you're going to use another's talking point at least get the order of magnitude correct.
Also, Obamacare isn't being ripped from anyone. Subsidies yes, insurance no. Now if you really want to talk about the only group whose insurance (not merely subsidies) was actually ripped from them, then we can once again discuss the millions who lost their individual coverage BECAUSE of Obamacare.
Last night the CBS Radio network news relayed the story that a "sharply divided" court had ruled on this "carefully crafted law."
I was laughing so hard at this display of sycophancy that I almost jerked the car into the median.
Rock on, garage (and your ilk),rock on!!
Ignorance is bliss:
Remove all mandates. All of them. No one should be required to buy, sell, provide or accept Obamacare insurance as payment.
Chris Lopes:
Actually, I believe you have struck on an important point. The Supreme Court worries not just about interpretting a particular case but also about how to instruct lower courts to perform their jobs. That is why we get prongs, steps or whatever.
Can anyone imagine how a legislature could EVER right a law that was unambiguous if the Court determines this law is ambiguous? If the task of drafting becomes an impossibility, the Supreme Court will have done a horrible disservice to the Constitution.
The solution would be to move away from omnibus bills full of payoffs, graft and pork -- which I would support. But a decision for the Administration would be a green light to the Executive Branch to run amuck.
"garage mahal said...
I hope ObamaCare isn't ripped from millions of people. Republicans like their ObamaCare!"
LOL The Comonwealth Fund is a liberal think tank committed to a single payer government health care system. The cite no actual facts, internals, nothing.
What's next "86% of Republicans support unions according to SEIU poll" ?
"garage mahal said...
I hope ObamaCare isn't ripped from millions of people. Republicans like their ObamaCare!"
The organization that Corky gets this "fact" is The Commonwealth Fund. Their President said that The Commonwealth Fund “marshaled its resources this year to produce timely and rigorous work that helped lay the groundwork for the historic Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010.”
Shocking poll results!
"garage mahal said...
I hope ObamaCare isn't ripped from millions of people. Republicans like their ObamaCare!"
The organization that Corky gets this "fact" is The Commonwealth Fund. Their President said that The Commonwealth Fund “marshaled its resources this year to produce timely and rigorous work that helped lay the groundwork for the historic Affordable Care Act, signed by President Obama in March 2010.”
Shocking poll results!
Look at the bright side. If the nomenklatura (in this case, the IRS) can simply write into the law whatever they want, we don't have to bother with Congress. Do we? Saves a lot of money and opens up some prime real estate.
"It's a fair critique, the language isn't crystal clear and did not follow the intentions of congress.
U.S> territories were deprived of fed bucks in the same way, using the same language in the same law. So the Congress intended for the territories to be deprived of fed bucks, but not the states? Why? Because they are people of color?
Hey remember way back when obama and carney and garage and all the lefties were telling us that 5 to 8 million people having their insurance yanked away was too small a number to worry about?
Good times, good times.
Heck, I wouldn't put it past Republicans in House and Senate from passing a law extending subsidies to the Feds underhandedly. Recall they could have not increased payments to Doctors which would have been blow to Obamacare, still they did so, quietly, hoping no one would notice.
T minus 25 minutes until the Marquette poll is released. No prediction, Curious George? C'mon, this will be fun! Just think, if you're closer than my prediction you get a full month of rubbing it in.
You do it too, Ann. Or were you being ironic?
"Shamefully dishonest" ruling?
Presumably unlike the headline writer, I read the relevant portion of the ACA.
I saw where it limited, in plain and clear English, reimbursement for premiums to those acquired on Exchanges established by the States.
What's "dishonest" - shamefully so - about saying the law means what it says is beyond me.
If the GOP reads the polls correctly, this is a good time for them to release a compromise plan that repeals parts of the ACA and replaces them with more palatable reforms. The polling over the past four years should indicate which parts are popular (e.g., coverage for under-25s on parents plans) and which are not (individual mandate) and with the right rollout they can position themselves as favoring reform but opposing the current mess that the ACA is.
Unfortunately, their strategy on the ACA has long been for total repeal, and any message that they have their own plan has not gotten through. (And as for blaming this on a hostile media--any GOP plan should be repeated constantly via conservative media so it won't be ignored) This is a risky strategy, in that it both relies on the ACA being unpopular which may not always be the case once people start getting used to subsidies, and it also alienates the not-insignificant number of ACA opponents who still want some type of reform.
Now would be a good time for a "replace" rollout, as the left is scrambling in the face of yet another court decision that demonstrates how poorly put together the ACA is.
"garage mahal said...
T minus 25 minutes until the Marquette poll is released. No prediction, Curious George? C'mon, this will be fun! Just think, if you're closer than my prediction you get a full month of rubbing it in."
My prediction is that it will be close as no one cares about polls in mid terms before fall. Walker by a couple like last time. Hows that?
Curious George, not to mention The Commonwealth Fund is currently being led by David Blumenthal, M.D, advisor to both the Dukakis and Obama campaigns, Obama appointee, and brother to Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn).
"Now would be a good time for a "replace" rollout, as the left is scrambling in the face of yet another court decision that demonstrates how poorly put together the ACA is."
No, that will be next year when the GOP has both houses of Congress. Maybe the Supreme Court will point the way with a ruling. The law can then be submitted to Obama and see if he vetoes it.
Obamacare is a Rube Goldberg machine that will never work. Maybe a new law can be written and passed as a replacement but keeping the name as a sop to Democrats.
"No, that will be next year when the GOP has both houses of Congress."
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I wouldn't rely too heavily on gaining the Senate--and of course either way whatever gets through would have to be agreed to or vetoed by the president.
The reason I think now is a good time to act is because the issue is still in the courts--and so there is a good argument to take to the public that a fix might prevent a lot of people from losing their subsidies, and the opponents of the GOP reform can be painted as willing to let them lose their subsidies simply to try and gain political advantage against the courts. If the DC Circuit votes en banc to reverse yesterday's ruling, or if the Supreme Court pulls a Roberts (or if the makeup of the Court changes by the time it hears this issue) the moment may pass and the Democrats have the upper hand--they can say the law is in operation and the GOP should leave it alone. Now is an opportune time to take advantage of the chaos.
Of course, if this issue helps gain an extra seat or two in the Senate, all the better--further reform is possible in the next Congress and this could ensure that that sort of reform makes it to Obama's desk. But the GOP needs to adopt smart strategy and not pin it all on the hopes that the public's distaste for the ACA will always stay that way, and always benefit the GOP.
Michael K,
Here's one to keep the name. Name it the
Omnibus
Bipartisan
Affordable
Medical
Act
Brando:
Those subsidies you so worry will disappear are tax dollars that already disappeared from other pockets.
If you can show a plan to stop the first set of pockets getting picked, I promise to worry about the second set.
Deal?
Birkel, I personally don't care about the subsidies disappearing. I'd be fine seeing this whole mess get scrapped and start over with bipartisan reform that helps increase competition, access and coverage without screwing the economy and health care in particular. I'm not even sure where all the money for these subsidies are supposed to come from.
But politically, if the GOP is going to win on this issue and implement some better changes, it will have to seize the mantle of health care reform. Simply calling for repeal and nothing more risks getting on the wrong side of the public on this issue, especially as the Obama administration keeps sending out checks.
Post a Comment