Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

I can't wait to start making 270towin maps on a regular basis again. I'll probably do a crayon map again for Senate races this year as we get closer to Election Day.

FWIW right now I'd go with something like this:

Though Landrieu could win in the run-off. We'll see.

I've got basically the same map, except I have Louisiana and Georgia as tossups (so 52-46-2) because I hate committing to things.

Not sure what Hillary's path to 440+ would be, though. Texas flip?

 

[benjipwns]

Nice strawman putz.

I'm just saying that's not something I'd put on my resume or tout lol

 

[Averon]

288,000 jobs in June?

Conservatives has been telling us for years ACA is going to be this great economy destroyer. So many jobs will be lost. How will they switch tactics against ACA if job creation continues down this track?

 

[Particle Physicist]

I doubt this figure would stand up to scrutiny, but I'm writing this part of my post after what comes before and what follows, and feel it's long enough. I may revisit this later.

It's based on scientific fact. Obviously some hyperbole there buddy.

 

[RustyNails]

288,000 jobs in June?

Conservatives has been telling us for years ACA is going to be this great economy destroyer. So many jobs will be lost. How will they switch tactics against ACA if job creation continues down this track?

We'd be creating 500,000 REAL AMERICAN jobs if Obamacare was repealed.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Pretty much all of it.

The broad reach of the narrow Hobby Lobby ruling

ERWIN CHEMERINSKY
But what does he know? He's just some law professor & dean of a law school.

Am I supposed to argue with his credentials? What, in particular, does Chemerinsky say in his op-ed that shows anything I said in my prior post to be "bs"? I'm not going to make your arguments for you, and I won't waste my time responding to an argument you don't consider worth making.

I will respond to two errors in Chemerinsky's column that caught my eye, however:

Never before has the Supreme Court found a substantial burden on a person's religious exercise where the individual is not himself required to take or forgo action that violates his or her religious beliefs but is merely required to take action that might enable other people to do things that are at odds with the person's religious beliefs.

In Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), as Alito recounts in Hobby Lobby,

we considered and rejected an argument that is nearly identical to the one now urged by HHS and the dissent. In Thomas, a Jehovah’s Witness was initially employed making sheet steel for a variety of industrial uses, but he was later transferred to a job making turrets for tanks. Id., at 710. Because he objected on religious grounds to participating in the manufacture of weapons, he lost his job and sought unemployment compensation. Ruling against the employee, the state court had difficulty with the line that the employee drew between work that he found to be consistent with his religious beliefs (helping to manufacture steel that was used in making weapons) and work that he found morally objectionable (helping to make the weapons themselves). This Court, however, held that “it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.” Id., at 715.

Once more, the court's conservative majority has engaged in stunning judicial activism in striking down a federal law based on its own conservative beliefs.

Hobby Lobby exempted certain employers from a mandate imposed by regulation, not by statute, and did so on the basis of Congressional direction in the form of the RFRA, not on the basis of the Court's "conservative beliefs" (unless we're counting "proper application of statutes" as a conservative belief--and maybe he is). The regulation was not struck down, but the RFRA operated to create an exemption from its requirements in certain circumstances. The regulation remains a valid part of the CFR.

EDIT:

It's based on scientific fact. Obviously some hyperbole there buddy.

Scientific fact? Where's the peer-reviewed article reciting that 99% figure (or any figure on the question)?

But I not only think your hyperbolic percentage is not based on "scientific fact," I don't think it has any factual basis whatsoever. Who are these organizations that believe all contraception is immoral, yet only object to providing female contraceptives? Can you name any?

 

[speculawyer]

We'd be creating 500,000 REAL AMERICAN jobs if Obamacare was repealed.

A nice thing about Obamacare is that it should actually create lots of jobs. If we really get more people covered with insurance then we will need more doctors, more nurses, more receptionists, more pharmacists, more x-ray technicians, etc. These are jobs that mostly can't be sent offshore.

 

[Wilsongt]

A nice thing about Obamacare is that it should actually create lots of jobs. If we really get more people covered with insurance then we will need more doctors, more nurses, more receptionists, more pharmacists, more x-ray technicians, etc. These are jobs that mostly can't be sent offshore.

But Obummer care will cost all of these people money because of fees and shit. No one will want to be come a doctor because they won't make enough money to feed their children due to His Royal Highness' law, which is the worst law ever created in the US.

 

[speculawyer]

I will respond to two errors in Chemerinsky's column that caught my eye, however:

In Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981), as Alito recounts in Hobby Lobby,

That case has nothing to do with that sentence. You arguments make no sense.

Building steel or building a turret is a direct action. Paying for insurance for another person that provides things which may or may not be used by that other person is indirect. The whole case is a bit of a farce because they paid for these drugs regularly until Obamacare was passed and they suddenly got offended, their stores are filled with items they buy from China that has some state forced abortions, and they invested drug companies that made these drugs they suddenly became offended by.

But hey, That Hussein Obama did something so let's suddenly allow the top 1% to enforce hypocritical superstitious views on their employees.


And I see you didn't bother to argue with what pointed out the other day . . . it is fundamentally unfair to claim your corporation has YOUR religious values but then refuse to be liable for the faults of the corporation.

 

[Jooney]

Hobby Lobby exempted certain employers from a mandate imposed by regulation, not by statute, and did so on the basis of Congressional direction in the form of the RFRA.

Isn't that the rub though? That certain employers are granted an exemption because their free exercise of religion had been deemed sufficiently burdened?

If I were an employer of another faith with equally-held religious convictions, I would resent that no similar accommodation was made for my right of free exercise of religion. Now you can argue that I can now take my claim to a lower court, but I were to lose, then what? What are the implications, and what does that say of the court's actions this week? I would interpret it as that I have less of a right to free exercise of religion then that of the Green family, and that the court had arbitrarily deemed one form of free religious exercise more burdensome than another. I wouldn't be alone in this interpretation. That concerns me greatly in a country that has typically gone to great lengths to not establish one religion over another.

 

[pigeon]

I've got basically the same map, except I have Louisiana and Georgia as tossups (so 52-46-2) because I hate committing to things.

Not sure what Hillary's path to 440+ would be, though. Texas flip?

Okay, "actual possibility" might be stretching it, but it would look like this.

http://www.270towin.com/2016_election_predictions.php?mapid=bHkI

Texas and Arizona flip due to Hispanic votes, NC/SC/Georgia from New South technocratic and African-American votes, Arkansas for the home state advantage and Indiana...okay, Indiana because it went blue in 2008 so maybe lightning can strike twice.

 

[Metaphoreus]

That case has nothing to do with that sentence. You arguments make no sense.

Building steel or building a turret is a direct action. Paying for insurance for another person that provides things which may or may not be used by that other person is indirect.

The Court clearly understood that it was dealing with the line separating innocent behavior (what you call "indirect action") from sinful complicity in sin (what you call "direct action"). The problem for Thomas was that by working to manufacture tank turrets, he believed he became complicit in what he, as a Jehovah's Witness, viewed as a sin: making war. But he wasn't making war, and a coworker who was also a Jehovah's Witness didn't find anything wrong with manufacturing turrets, despite their shared religion. And the Court said, plain as day, that it was up to the religious believer to define where the line between direct action and indirect action lies.

Applying that to Hobby Lobby, it doesn't matter where you, I, Erwin Chemerinsky, HHS, or the Court would draw the line between "direct action" and "indirect action." What matters is where Hobby Lobby draws that line. Hobby Lobby believes that providing coverage for the challenged contraceptive makes it complicit in sin, meaning that providing coverage is "direct action."

The whole case is a bit of a farce because they paid for these drugs regularly until Obamacare was passed and they suddenly got offended, their stores are filled with items they buy from China that has some state forced abortions, and they invested drug companies that made these drugs they suddenly became offended by.

But hey, That Hussein Obama did something so let's suddenly allow the top 1% to enforce hypocritical superstitious views on their employees. I hate conservatives!

FTFY.

And I see you didn't bother to argue with what pointed out the other day . . . it is fundamentally unfair to claim your corporation has YOUR religious values but then refuse to be liable for the faults of the corporation.

I did respond to it:

I've said before that this is a bargain that's never been struck in American law. I'll add that it shouldn't be, either. There's no logical connection between a corporation being a person with rights and having separate assets and liabilities from its shareholders. We're not talking about a veil-piercing scenario, where the shareholders ignore the separateness of corporate finances and then demand a court to respect them. We're talking about people who, because they sincerely believe in a religion, infuse every aspect of their lives with their beliefs, yet still respect the financial separateness of their corporation. And, as I said above, nobody would accept that bargain, which is bad if you see limited liability as beneficial to economic development.

You even responded to that post, without addressing the arguments I put forward--namely, that there's no logical connection supporting your proposal; that the traditional veil-piercing analysis doesn't fit a scenario where financial separateness is respected by the owners; and that making limited liability contingent on surrendering Constitutional protections would be economically harmful.

Isn't that the rub though? That certain employers are granted an exemption because their free exercise of religion had been deemed sufficiently burdened?

This is just the nature of court cases--a court can only address the case or controversy presently before them, not any other. But this opinion isn't limited solely to Christian businesses--any employer with a religious objection to providing coverage for the challenged contraceptives can take advantage of this ruling, regardless of the religion they adhere to. The rest of you post hinges on the employer of another religion losing an RFRA challenge, but at this point, that's purely hypothetical, and so there's no way to discuss it.

(Except that I will say that involving the courts in this process may look bad to outside observers who either don't understand how the process works, or are suspicious of the courts' motives. That's part of why the Court changed its Free Exercise jurisprudence back in the early '90s--a change which led Congress to enact the RFRA.)

 

[videogamer]

good work there Erwin

Belarus isn't exactly a country known for its outstanding governance and transparency.

 

[benjipwns]

Belarus isn't exactly a country known for its outstanding governance and transparency.

that was the joke about why I wouldn't list it on my resume/accomplishments

"The Last Dictatorship in Europe" and I helped!

 

[Jooney]

This is just the nature of court cases--a court can only address the case or controversy presently before them, not any other. But this opinion isn't limited solely to Christian businesses--any employer with a religious objection to providing coverage for the covered contraceptives can take advantage of this ruling, regardless of the religion they adhere to. The rest of you post hinges on the employer of another religion losing an RFRA challenge, but at this point, that's purely hypothetical, and so there's no way to discuss it.

(Except that I will say that involving the courts in this process may look bad to outside observers who either don't understand how the process works, or are suspicious of the courts' motives. That's part of why the Court changed its Free Exercise jurisprudence back in the early '90s--a change which led Congress to enact the RFRA.)

I disagree that you cannot talk about hypotheticals. The justices pose hypothetical scenarios during hearings all the time, to test the scope and bounds or an argument or position. But I digress.

If you logically take another test case (e.g. one of Ginsburg's dissent examples) through the same process and through the same tests that the court has applied, there can be only one of two outcomes:

1) that the plaintiff wins, and another cohort will have to depend on the Government or a third party to provide the coverage gap (despite it being part of their compensation package with said plaintiff); or

2) the plaintiff loses, which infers that their free exercise of religion was not deemed to be sufficiently burdened by the court and therefore has less of a right to free exercise of religion than that of the Green family or other groups who hold faith-based views on contraception.

Both of these outcomes concern me and many of the other posters here.

Opposition to this ruling extends beyond contraception, and to the larger interplay between religious liberty and the rule of law. Concerns about the balance of power between employers and employees, corporations and citizens are also a factor here, and to couch your argument within the narrow bounds set by the court does nothing to assuage or compel myself to the supposed merits and assurances of this ruling.

 

[Joe Molotov]

that was the joke about why I wouldn't list it on my resume/accomplishments

"The Last Dictatorship in Europe" and I helped!

Well when you put it like that, it sounds pretty badass.

 

[Diablos]

No one is worried about this?

Obamacare was left mostly unharmed this week despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against its contraception mandate. But a far greater threat to the law is alive and well a few blocks away in Washington, D.C.

Any day now, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule in Halbig v. Burwell, an expansive challenge that goes directly after federal insurance subsidies. An unfavorable outcome stands to cripple a core component of Obamacare, without which the law may not be able to survive. Two of the judges, both Republican appointees, expressed varying degrees of sympathy for the challengers' case.

"Of all the challenges since the individual mandate, this is the one that presents the most mortal threat to the act," Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, told TPM.

At issue is whether the statute permits the federal exchange (which serves residents of 34 states which opted not to build their own) to dole out premium tax credits. Without the subsidies, which are benefiting millions of lower-income Americans, the individual mandate is unworkable because many people won't be able to afford insurance. And without the mandate, the coverage guarantee for preexisting conditions threatens to send costs soaring and destabilize the health care market.

The challenge was initially written off by some as a fool's errand because there's a lack of evidence that the Democrats who crafted and passed the Affordable Care Act intended to block subsidies on the federal exchange, which was designed as a backstop on behalf of the states. (They've signed a brief saying as much.) But the challengers seized on an ambiguity in the language of the statute which says the subsidies are to be provided by "an Exchange established by the State."

"If the legislation is just stupid, I don't see that it's up to the court to save it," Judge A. Raymond Randolph said during oral arguments in March.

Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute "seems perfectly clear on its face" that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers' claims as "preposterous." So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn't resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration's defense, saying it had a "special burden" to show that the language "doesn't mean what it appears to mean."

Turley said, "If this case were decided on the basis of the statutory language, the advantage goes to the challengers. If the court is willing to broaden its interpretation then the administration may have an edge. It depends entirely on how the panel structures its analysis."

If the three-judge panel rules against federal Obamacare subsidies, sources close to the case say the administration is very likely to request an en banc ruling -- a re-vote taken by the full D.C. Circuit. The math of the overall bench is friendlier to the White House: 7 judges are Democratic appointees and 4 are Republican appointees. Four of the judges were placed by President Barack Obama himself, all during his second term.

The legal basis for the lawsuit was crafted by Cato's Michael Cannon and Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler. The challengers lost the case in the D.C. district court. Cannon said on Wednesday he's "hopeful" about winning at the appeals court.

The White House declined to comment on the pending litigation and administration officials wouldn't weigh in on potential contingency plans if the D.C. Circuit court's final judgment is against the Obamacare subsidies.

"The text of the statute makes clear that the state establishment of an Exchange was never viewed as a condition for the availability of tax credits," read the brief signed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and other legislative architects of Obamacare.

This sounds potentially huge. Could this go to the Supreme Court?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/halbig-obamacare-ruling-looms-dc-circuit

 

[benjipwns]

Well when you put it like that, it sounds pretty badass.

You're just saying that because he's a dreamboat:

 

[thepotatoman]

As much as I wouldn't want this to happen I'd laugh my ass off if Hillary won 440+ EVs while the GOP retained their House majority. Especially since Democrats will probably have 56-57 Senate seats after the 2016 election.

I can't wait to start making 270towin maps on a regular basis again. I'll probably do a crayon map again for Senate races this year as we get closer to Election Day.

FWIW right now I'd go with something like this:

Though Landrieu could win in the run-off. We'll see.

What? You mean you don't believe the hype for a republican Oregon?

Seriously, though completely agree with everything on that map. Kentucky could still easily end up being a disappointment, and democrats should keep bracing for that possibility, but I can't help but feel good about Grimes in that race.

 

[benjipwns]

No one is worried about this?


This sounds potentially huge. Could this go to the Supreme Court?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/halbig-obamacare-ruling-looms-dc-circuit

I didn't realize they actually got this off the ground and into court. I thought they had more ambiguities than this one though. Maybe this was just the one they were going to press first.

It'll get killed since courts don't care about any actual legislative intent, just the public facing one.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I've got basically the same map, except I have Louisiana and Georgia as tossups (so 52-46-2) because I hate committing to things.

Not sure what Hillary's path to 440+ would be, though. Texas flip?

Calling LA and GA for Republicans is just being cautious more than anything. They'll both go to run-off elections anyway (much more likely than not) and by that time the dynamics will be completely different. That being said I imagine national Democrats will pour far more resources into holding Louisiana than picking up Georgia, although they have the benefit of not taking place on the same day - LA will be in December, GA in January - so they don't necessarily have to pick.

What? You mean you don't believe the hype for a republican Oregon?

Seriously, though completely agree with everything on that map. Kentucky could still easily end up being a disappointment, and democrats should keep bracing for that possibility, but I can't help but feel good about Grimes in that race.

No hype for a Republican Oregon, sadly. Though Matt Groening should be happy!

 

[benjipwns]

What? You mean you don't believe the hype for a republican Oregon?

No hype for a Republican Oregon, sadly. Though Matt Groening should be happy!

If NBA STAR Chris Dudley couldn't pull it off...

Spoiler

At least he topped his career FT%.

 

[Joe Molotov]

You're just saying that because he's a dreamboat:

He's like a European Louie Gohmert, how dreamy.

 

[benjipwns]

I want to call him The Butcher, not because of anything he's done, but because he literally looks like the butcher who used to be at this one supermarket when I was younger.

Actually, maybe that guy retired to become dictator of Belarus.

Or it's some kind of Eastern European "Dave" going on.

 

[Diablos]

I didn't realize they actually got this off the ground and into court. I thought they had more ambiguities than this one though. Maybe this was just the one they were going to press first.

It'll get killed since courts don't care about any actual legislative intent, just the public facing one.

Well it did go to a court before afaik but it got knocked down. This is another attempt.

 

[benjipwns]

They were also going to try seeing if there was anything with the "tax"/"penalty" language, but I imagine that goes nowhere up against Roberts precedent.

 

[Diablos]

The problem is if they interpret the law as having at typo, and think it meant that only states can set up exchanges [with subsidies] and not the federal government, that would not only cripple the ACA but the healthcare industry. That would be a clusterfuck of epic proportions. It's quite concerning. If the right-leaning 3-judge panel votes this way it then it's definitely going to the DC court, and while it'll be stopped there, that doesn't mean it can't eventually make its way to the SCOTUS...

Who knows what Roberts would do? He clearly changed his mind about the ACA at the last minute...

 

[Particle Physicist]

EDIT:
Scientific fact? Where's the peer-reviewed article reciting that 99% figure (or any figure on the question)?

But I not only think your hyperbolic percentage is not based on "scientific fact," I don't think it has any factual basis whatsoever.

Um... I was being sarcastic.

Who are these organizations that believe all contraception is immoral, yet only object to providing female contraceptives? Can you name any?

It is too late and I am too tired to do a solid google search right now because everything that turns up is about Hobby Lobby, but it has happened, they are there. Mainly around the time that Obamacare was being discussed and these religious organizations began going apeshit. Probably why people also looked into if Hobby Lobby covered vasectomies as well.

 

[benjipwns]

The problem is if they interpret the law as having at typo, and think it meant that only states can set up exchanges and not the federal government, that would not only cripple the ACA but the healthcare industry.

Actually I think what this case pertains to, IIRC, is subsidies only. That the language of the law (under their argument) does not permit federal subsidies to exchanges not setup by states.

EDIT: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0701-turley-obamacare-subsidy-halbig-20140701-story.html

The Halbig case challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges "established by the state."

But despite that carrot — and to the great surprise of the administration — some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.

Indeed, the Halbig plaintiffs — individuals and small businesses in six states that didn't establish state exchanges — objected that, without the tax credits, they could have claimed exemption from the individual mandate penalty because they would be deemed unable to pay for the coverage. If the courts agree with them, the costs would go up in all 34 states that didn't establish state exchanges, and the resulting exemptions could lead to a mass exodus from Obamacare.

The administration attempted to solve the problem by simply declaring that even residents of states without their own exchanges were eligible for subsidies, even though the law seemed to specifically say they were not. The administration argues that although the statute's language does limit subsidies to residents of places with exchanges "established by the state," that wording actually referred to any exchange, including those established by the federal government. In January, a district court judge upheld that interpretation, allowing the subsidies to continue.

And here's one of the Cato fellers posts: http://www.cato.org/blog/obamacares...zen-other-functions-besides-issuing-subsidies

One of the issues underlying Halbig v. Sebelius and three similar lawsuits making their way through federal courts is whether Congress intentionally restricted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (PPACA) private health-insurance subsidies to individuals who buy coverage through state-established exchanges. If so, that would mean the Internal Revenue Service’s decision to issue subsidies in the 34 states that did not establish exchanges (i.e., that have federally established exchanges) is illegal. For more on the IRS’s attempt to rewrite the PPACA in this fashion, click here.

On Twitter, a skeptic challenges my coauthor Jonathan Adler claim that Congress intended to withhold subsidies in states that did not establish exchanges, arguing “The exchanges serve no purpose at all absent subsidies. Is there no golden rule at all in American jurisprudence?” (Read the entire exchange here.)

In legal jargon, the skeptic argues that a literal interpretation of the statutory language restricting subsidies to those enrolled “through an Exchange established by the State” would be absurd, and the courts should defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation.

Exchanges, however, are regulatory bureaucracies that perform other functions and serve other purposes besides dispensing subsidies, as the PPACA’s authors and the president acknowledged. In 2009, President Obama said that health insurance exchanges “would allow families and some small businesses the benefit of one-stop-shopping for their health care coverage and enable them to compare price and quality and pick the plan that best suits their needs.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said PPACA “guarantees real choice and competition to keep insurers in check… By creating strong competition, we’ll reduce skyrocketing health care costs.” The PPACA’s Senate drafters wrote, “Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchanges begin will be excluded–a powerful incentive to keep premiums affordable.”

In fact, the exchanges are supposed to perform more than a dozen functions besides issuing subsidies. Here are some of the ways PPACA’s health insurance exchanges attempt to serve the goals of “one-stop shopping,” price and quality comparisons, expanding choice and competition, and reducing health insurance premiums, even in the absence of subsidies:

 

[Diablos]

Yeah that's what I meant to say.

If it goes to the DC court then it is inevitable -- it is on its way to the SCOTUS. Makes me wonder if this is what Roberts wanted... slowly chip away at the law while letting others do the work so he doesn't look like the guy who really got the ball rolling gutting the ACA.

IF this is what the Conservatives really want, it is pure lunacy. Retroactively depriving people of subsidies they singed up for will KILL the marketplace. If they're pro-business they better think about what this would do to health care companies, even. From the top down this would just set a horrible precedent.

 

[benjipwns]

One of the things about massive complex laws and regulations nobody understands is that if you've got the time and the money you can find something like this and one little phrase can derail a whole host of shit. Left-wing groups have done similar things. I'm a fan of it in general personally.

 

[Diablos]

You are in favor of conservatives depriving people of health insurance and fucking over the industry too?

 

[benjipwns]

You are in favor of conservatives depriving people of health insurance and fucking over the industry too?

Hey, if you get in bed with the devil...

IF this is what the Conservatives really want, it is pure lunacy. Retroactively depriving people of subsidies they singed up for will KILL the marketplace. If they're pro-business they better think about what this would do to health care companies, even.

Maybe they've decided they want a single-payer system so they can deny health care to gays and immigrants.

 

[thepotatoman]

I didn't realize they actually got this off the ground and into court. I thought they had more ambiguities than this one though. Maybe this was just the one they were going to press first.

It'll get killed since courts don't care about any actual legislative intent, just the public facing one.

You're right. Just like the individual mandate was upheld because of public facing reasons, so would this one. I don't see why this case would be any different from that one.

Not that it would have been the right decision to kill the individual mandate there, but Roberts could have easily just taken up the argument of the other conservative justices if he felt like it.

 

[Diablos]

Hey, if you get in bed with the devil...

So is this your way of coping with the possibility that the ACA's future once again is uncertain?

Maybe they've decided they want a single-payer system so they can deny health care to gays and immigrants.

Yeah a lot of people in comments sections are saying this will somehow usher in single-payer. It's a fucking pipe dream.

 

[benjipwns]

So is this your way of coping with the possibility that the ACA's future once again is uncertain?

I'm against the ACA and corporations writing laws to receive subsidies and forcing people to purchase their products in general.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I disagree that you cannot talk about hypotheticals. The justices pose hypothetical scenarios during hearings all the time, to test the scope and bounds or an argument or position. But I digress.

If you logically take another test case (e.g. one of Ginsburg's dissent examples) through the same process and through the same tests that the court has applied, there can be only one of two outcomes:

1) that the plaintiff wins, and another cohort will have to depend on the Government or a third party to provide the coverage gap (despite it being part of their compensation package with said plaintiff); or

2) the plaintiff loses, which infers that their free exercise of religion was not deemed to be sufficiently burdened by the court and therefore has less of a right to free exercise of religion than that of the Green family or other groups who hold faith-based views on contraception.

Both of these outcomes concern me and many of the other posters here.

What I mean is, without real cases with real facts and real judgments based on real analysis, it's impossible to talk about why challenge X, Y, or Z succeeded or failed. But I think you're making a larger point, though--that the potential for preferential treatment (or the appearance of it) is too large with the kind of exemption scheme established by the RFRA. That's not an issue with this ruling, though; that's an issue with the RFRA.

And option (2) in your post should be: (2) The plaintiff loses, because (a) the government action doesn't substantially burden the plaintiff's exercise of religion; or (b) the government action does burden the plaintiff's exercise of religion, and (i) the government action furthered a compelling government interest, and (ii) the government action was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling government interest. This is a bit more nuanced than how you presented it, and is why we can't really talk about hypotheticals--the outcome of an RFRA case depends too strongly on the factual context in which a case arises.

EDIT:

Well it did go to a court before afaik but it got knocked down. This is another attempt.

I think you're thinking of the same case, but in the District Court, which ruled against the challengers.

The problem is if they interpret the law as having at typo, and think it meant that only states can set up exchanges and not the federal government, that would not only cripple the ACA but the healthcare industry.

If they think it's a typo, that's a problem the courts can fix. If they think the text is what Congress intended, only Congress can fix it.

 

[Diablos]

You're right. Just like the individual mandate was upheld because of public facing reasons, so would this one. I don't see why this case would be any different from that one.

Not that it would have been the right decision to kill the individual mandate there, but Roberts could have easily just taken up the argument of the other conservative justices if he felt like it.

That's just it -- he almost did. Everyone seems to think he changed his mind at the last minute.

Roberts classified the mandate as a 'tax'. He did not address subsidies and if they are a contributing factor of it merely being classified as a 'tax'. So in other words, he could be playing a really long game -- calling it a 'tax' with a subsidy on the side (irrelevant to it being a tax or not though) is really no big deal. Nuke the subsidy unless your state is eager to participate, and it becomes a big deal, because that 'tax' you were only paying $200 a month for has now turned into $600 or higher, for example. And Roberts would likely just beat his chest and say "well, nyuk nyuk I always said it was a tax, enjoy your non-subsidized health plans you dirty poors." He's taking the spotlight off himself and potentially setting up the groundwork for gutting the ACA from the outside. Mandate = tax, and it is up to Congress to deal with the rest. HOWEVER the question of if the IRS is able to push subsidies in the event states don't want to is unrelated if you think about it. Roberts could easily say this is not legal while maintaining the ACA clearly defined there being a mandate to simply have health insurance no matter what the cost is to the individual, PERIOD.

I'm against the ACA and corporations writing laws to receive subsidies and forcing people to purchase their products in general.

But the health insurance market is much better off with this law. It isn't single payer. But it's much better than nothing.

 

[Diablos]

If they think it's a typo, that's a problem the courts can fix. If they think the text is what Congress intended, only Congress can fix it.

How are the courts going to fix it? One court will rule for it, another against, it'll just work its way to the SCOUTS if this three judge panel doesn't just let it go...

 

[ISOM]

I'm against the ACA and corporations writing laws to receive subsidies and forcing people to purchase their products in general.

Lives have literally been saved because of Obamacare. It may not be perfect but people need to get the fuck over it already. Until we get single payer this is the best upgrade over the previous healthcare system.

 

[benjipwns]

But the health insurance market is much better off with this law. It isn't single payer. But it's much better than nothing.

The ACA is just piling more of the same shit that fucked up the health insurance and health care markets in the first place and does nothing to undo the third-party payer pre-paid plan system which is a clusterfuck. (While also kicking health insurance while it's a dead horse.)

And I'm opposed to single payer, but at least it can't hide (or more accurately not even know) the costs like the mess of the American health care system can.

 

[Metaphoreus]

How are the courts going to fix it? One court will rule for it, another against, it'll just work its way to the SCOUTS if this three judge panel doesn't just let it go...

Typos can be ignored, and the text treated as though it did not contain the typo (called a "scrivener's error").

 

[Diablos]

The ACA is just piling more of the same shit that fucked up the health insurance and health care markets in the first place and does nothing to undo the third-party payer pre-paid plan system which is a clusterfuck. (While also kicking health insurance while it's a dead horse.)

And I'm opposed to single payer, but at least it can't hide (or more accurately not even know) the costs like the mess of the American health care system can.

You don't want single-payer either? What do you want then?

Typos can be ignored, and the text treated as though it did not contain the typo (called a "scrivener's error").

No one is going to ignore this. It's the basis of the argument and that alone will keep it afloat if this panel doesn't kill it now.

 

[benjipwns]

Typos can be ignored, and the text treated as though it did not contain the typo (called a "scrivener's error").

Their argument is that it's not a typo, it was intentional and then ignored when reality happened.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No one is going to ignore this. It's the basis of the argument and that alone will keep it afloat if this panel doesn't kill it now.

Their argument is that it's not a typo, it was intentional and then ignored when reality happened.

I know what the arguments are. If a court agrees with Diablos that it's a typo--an unintentional "scrivener's error"--then the government wins.

EDIT: It doesn't appear that the government is arguing that a scrivener's error has been made, though early rebuttals to the arguments underlying the Halbig challenge did.

 

[thepotatoman]

That's just it -- he almost did. Everyone seems to think he changed his mind at the last minute.

Roberts classified the mandate as a 'tax'. He did not address subsidies and if they are a contributing factor of it merely being classified as a 'tax'. So in other words, he could be playing a really long game -- calling it a 'tax' with a subsidy on the side (irrelevant to it being a tax or not though) is really no big deal. Nuke the subsidy unless your state is eager to participate, and it becomes a big deal, because that 'tax' you were only paying $200 a month for has now turned into $600 or higher, for example. And Roberts would likely just beat his chest and say "well, nyuk nyuk I always said it was a tax, enjoy your non-subsidized health plans you dirty poors." He's taking the spotlight off himself and potentially setting up the groundwork for gutting the ACA from the outside. Mandate = tax, and it is up to Congress to deal with the rest. HOWEVER the question of if the IRS is able to push subsidies in the event states don't want to is unrelated if you think about it. Roberts could easily say this is not legal while maintaining the ACA clearly defined there being a mandate to simply have health insurance no matter what the cost is to the individual, PERIOD.


But the health insurance market is much better off with this law. It isn't single payer. But it's much better than nothing.

Given that's true, the question still remains of why did Roberts change his mind? I would say it wasn't that he all of a sudden saw the light to the other side of the argument that the mandate was actually a tax, but instead saw how bad it would look for the court to basically overturn something so big and political on such shaky grounds. And that reasoning applies even more here, because we're talking about something that millions of people are hugely benefiting from, and an argument that could only be described as a technicality or a loophole, which isn't exactly the public's favorite legal concept.

Hell, I would even bet the establishment republicans would be asking Roberts to not put the responsibility on the state republicans to keep or take away subsidies which are already going out.

 

[pigeon]

Mostly what annoys me about this challenge is that the key idea underlying it is that the federal government is not "the state."

This strikes me as a philosophical argument rather than a legal one. Admittedly, it is in some ways the philosophical argument of our times, but it still bugs me that it's considered worthy of being entertained in court at all.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The ACA is just piling more of the same shit that fucked up the health insurance and health care markets in the first place and does nothing to undo the third-party payer pre-paid plan system which is a clusterfuck. (While also kicking health insurance while it's a dead horse.)

And I'm opposed to single payer, but at least it can't hide (or more accurately not even know) the costs like the mess of the American health care system can.

You won't have to worry about the ACA anymore for much longer considering the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will gut it in a week or two.

Only Hillary can save us.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Mostly what annoys me about this challenge is that the key idea underlying it is that the federal government is not "the state."

This strikes me as a philosophical argument rather than a legal one. Admittedly, it is in some ways the philosophical argument of our times, but it still bugs me that it's considered worthy of being entertained in court at all.

Section 1304 of the ACA defines "State" as "each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia." So it's clear that in using the word "State," Congress didn't intend it to have its technical meaning, in which it's a synonym for "government."

 

[benjipwns]

Mostly what annoys me about this challenge is that the key idea underlying it is that the federal government is not "the state."

This strikes me as a philosophical argument rather than a legal one. Admittedly, it is in some ways the philosophical argument of our times, but it still bugs me that it's considered worthy of being entertained in court at all.

The law is talking about the states, not "the state" as an entity.

(d) State
In this title,1 the term “State” means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.

(1) In general
Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title [1] as an “Exchange”) for the State that—
(A) facilitates the purchase of qualified health plans;
(B) provides for the establishment of a Small Business Health Options Program (in this title [1] referred to as a “SHOP Exchange”) that is designed to assist qualified employers in the State who are small employers in facilitating the enrollment of their employees in qualified health plans offered in the small group market in the State; and
(C) meets the requirements of subsection (d).
(2) Merger of individual and SHOP Exchanges
A State may elect to provide only one Exchange in the State for providing both Exchange and SHOP Exchange services to both qualified individuals and qualified small employers, but only if the Exchange has adequate resources to assist such individuals and employers.

The term ‘Exchange’ means an American Health Benefit Exchange established under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Unless specifically provided for otherwise, the definitions contained in section 300gg–91 of this title shall apply with respect to this title.1

(b) State Action <<NOTE: Deadline.>> .--Each State that elects, at
such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe, to apply
the requirements described in subsection (a) shall, not later than
January 1, 2014, adopt and have in effect--
(1) the Federal standards established under subsection (a);
or
(2) a State law or regulation that the Secretary determines
implements the standards within the State.

(c) Failure To Establish Exchange or Implement Requirements.--
(1) In general.--If--
(A) a State is not an electing State under
subsection (b); or
(B) <<NOTE: Determination. Deadline.>> the Secretary
determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an
electing State--
(i) will not have any required Exchange
operational by January 1, 2014; or
(ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary
determines necessary to implement--
(I) the other requirements set forth
in the standards under subsection (a);
or
(II) the requirements set forth in
subtitles A and C and the amendments
made by such subtitles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-
for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are
necessary to implement such other requirements.