• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LAtoDC

Neo Member
#stillcovered

I love watching Fox News on days like this. Big win for the administration, big win for the ACA, big win for the United States of America.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
Help, I'm stupid: does this mean states where the governors blocked subsidies will now get them? Or are we just at where we were already?
 
Y

Yellowtail

Member
YES!

LolScalia

CIWjemjWUAAJVVg.png
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Roberts used the dissent in NFIB v. Sebellius to straight-up troll the dissenters in this case:

It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting) (slip op., at 60) (“Without the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”).
Click to expand...

Awesome.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Given that the DC Circuit rejected the origination of the ACA (bills raising revenue has to originate in the House, Roberts said it was a tax, etc), this is probably the end to any major legal challenges to the ACA.

And if Hillary wins, or the Senate keeps being the Senate... it's over. It's law. It's here.

Yellowtail said:
YES!

LolScalia

CIWjemjWUAAJVVg.png
Click to expand...

He's having a bad end of term.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
FyreWulff said:
Help, I'm stupid: does this mean states where the governors blocked subsidies will now get them? Or are we just at where we were already?
Click to expand...

We're just where we were at already.

Also, Fifth Circuit was affirmed in the Fair Housing Act case, which means lawsuits alleging that a law or practice is discriminatory in practice, even if not in original purpose, are allowed. Win for civil rights!
 
P

pigeon

Banned
On King: it's a big deal that SCOTUS affirmed the Fourth Circuit but refused to apply Chevron deference (which would have left it in the hands of the IRS and the executive branch as to whether subsidies were available or not). Even if a GOP president is elected, it will not be a straightforward executive action to dismantle Obamacare.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Also, no usage of Chevron in the opinion, meaning a future president can't interpret the statute to not giving subsidies to states on the federal exchange.

EDIT: fuq u pigeon
 
D

Diablos

Member
Herpes Reasons said:
ACA isn't safe yet. 2016 will determine that.
Click to expand...
Yeah if the GOP gets back in the WH, so be it. We can't control that and it might be harder than we think to repeal it. This case was important not just because of the ACA but the idea of the court actually siding with such an insane arguement would have set a grim precedent for the legitimacy of the SCOTUS and how they make decisions.

Have a nice day everyone.

YES WE CAN
 
P

pigeon

Banned
king v burwell said:
As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation. Cf. Frankfurter, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 545 (1947) (describing a cartoon “in which a senator tells his colleagues ‘I admit this new bill is too complicated to understand. We’ll just have to pass it to find out what it means.’”).
Click to expand...

.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
Yeah, even with a GOP president/House/Senate, there's little chance the law finds 60 votes in the Senate to repeal.

Unless they try to use budget reconciliation. And then, like, it still won't happen.
 
L

LAtoDC

Neo Member
Granted Roberts wrote the opinion (and conservatives are already tearing him a new one) but they are completely ignoring the fact that the decision was 6-3.

POTUS to speak at 11:30 from the Rose Garden on the decision
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
FyreWulff said:
Help, I'm stupid: does this mean states where the governors blocked subsidies will now get them? Or are we just at where we were already?
Click to expand...
Governors blocked Meducaid expansion - this was about subsidies for private insurance. So in other words yes, status quo.

I think if Obamacare survives the next presidential term - so either if Hillary wins, Democrats win the Senate (or House lol) or the Senate retains the filibuster it's golden. 2017 is when the last major provisions in the law take effect right? If it's still around by then it's here to stay. It could be replaced by something else in the future but we're not regressing.

I'd really like to see the next Democratic Congress further expand the law by fixing the Medicaid expansion so everyone can get it, implementing a public option and lowering the Medicare age to 55. While it still wouldn't be a perfect final solution (which ideally would get the uninsured rate down to zero) I imagine that would take care of a big chunk of those still uninsured.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Governors blocked Meducaid expansion - this was about subsidies for private insurance. So in other words yes, status quo.

I think if Obamacare survives the next presidential term - so either if Hillary wins, Democrats win the Senate (or House lol) or the Senate retains the filibuster it's golden. 2017 is when the last major provisions in the law take effect right? If it's still around by then it's here to stay. It could be replaced by something else in the future but we're not regressing.

I'd really like to see the next Democratic Congress further expand the law by fixing the Medicaid expansion so everyone can get it, implementing a public option and lowering the Medicare age to 55. While it still wouldn't be a perfect final solution (which ideally would get the uninsured rate down to zero) I imagine that would take care of a big chunk of those still uninsured.
Click to expand...

How would that even work? Would you be forcing the states to expand despite them wanting not to?(Obviously for political reasons but...) and whats a simple way to explain the public option?
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
rawk said:
Don't forget that the nightmare GOP executive gets to appoint its own nightmare supreme court justices.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty safe legally now though no?

I would imagine any repeal, now, would take an act of congress. By 2016 and beyond that could be politically disadvantageous.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Fenderputty said:
I'm even having a hard time envisioning the ACA being taken out by a nightmare GOP run Executive / Sentate / House.
Click to expand...

As various posts and tweets show, the real issue is that they no longer want to. Obamacare has joined the ranks of Social Security as a program the GOP runs on cutting but will not actually ever cut.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
BertramCooper said:
There is not a single Confederate soldier that fought honorably because it was a fundamentally dishonorable cause.

That doesn't mean there weren't any otherwise honorable people fighting for the Confederacy, or that there weren't any Confederate soldiers fighting for reasons unrelated to slavery.

But you simply can't classify any service in the Confederate Army as honorable.

I can't figure out why southerners are so sensitive about this shit. They're your ancestors. You don't have to defend them. I have little doubt that I have a number of truly horrible people from centuries ago who have contributed to my genes, but I'm not going to take criticism of them as an attack on me. That would be silly.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with this argument, because it boils down to "if you've done one bad thing in your life, you're bad", and ignores the very personal stories people fighting in the war had. I don't think there was anything honorable about immigrants being handed guns and shipped off to fight someone else's war, but that doesn't impugn the conduct of all those in the Federal army.
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
pigeon said:
As various posts and tweets show, the real issue is that they no longer want to. Obamacare has joined the ranks of Social Security as a program the GOP runs on cutting but will not actually ever cut.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I was thinking. By 2016 it will be so entrenched that if they do try and repeal they'll need an alternative plan or it will backfire. A plan which they don't and won't have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom