Obamacare On The Docket Again
This will be a rather busy week in the political world. We've got the Prime Minister of Israel giving a controversial speech before Congress tomorrow, and then at the end of the week we'll have another round of government shutdown follies, courtesy of the House Republicans. Between these two events, the Supreme Court is going to be busy with a few questions in the political arena. The most prominent of these cases is King v. Burwell, which puts Obamacare back on the docket.
The first time the high court heard a major Obamacare case was in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, back in 2012. At the time, the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare's official name) was upheld by a vote of 5 to 4. This time around will likely be a close decision as well, but neither side should really be counting their chickens in advance of the expected ruling (the court will hear the oral arguments Wednesday, but a decision isn't expected until June, at the latest).
Defenders of Obamacare have two main legal arguments, while opponents have one. This is not determinative in and of itself, of course, because nobody knows which argument is the stronger one at this point. The Obamacare defenders argue first that the totality of the law should be taken into account when interpreting any one tiny piece of it -- the clear intent was that Congress was providing subsidies equally to all Americans, no matter what their state legislatures did. The law must be read in context to the other parts of the law. This is an argument that many conservative justices on the court have used in previous cases, so it's not exactly a partisan argument. The second argument from the Obamacare side is that when the federal government is using either sticks or carrots when dealing with the states in any particular legislation, there must be clear warning given to the states: "Do X, or we will withhold Y amount of federal dollars," for instance. This argument is bolstered by the fact that even Obamacare's opponents in Congress never used the "states on the federal exchange will not get subsidies" line of attack when the bill was being endlessly debated, before it passed. Obamacare opponents only recently discovered this argument, after King V. Burwell was filed. If states without their own exchanges were going to be penalized in such a fashion, why didn't anyone point it out at the time? Again, this line of legal reasoning has been used by conservative justices in other cases.
The opponents of Obamacare have one clear argument, one which Horton the Elephant might have stated as: "It means what it says, and it says what it means." The one sentence in question clearly only refers to exchanges set up by the states, therefore the I.R.S. cannot allow subsidies to be given in any state included in the federal exchange. Period.
Both arguments will be pitched to one man: Chief Justice John Roberts. How the other justices rule is not really much in question (although it's conceivable that Kennedy might surprise some people by voting for Obamacare). Roberts was the deciding vote in the earlier Obamacare case, and Roberts is much more aware of his namesake court's historical legacy. No chief justice wants their name on a legal decision that later will be taught in law schools as a great example of bad law, in other words. This weight on Roberts shoulders existed in the earlier case, and may have nudged him towards ruling for Obamacare. But if that's true, then it would be hard to see him now essentially reversing himself after allowing Obamacare to move forward. But again, that would be prematurely counting chickens. Neither side is all that sure they're going to win this case, to put it another way.
The impact of gutting Obamacare now would be immeasurably bigger than it was back in 2012, which is something else Roberts could be giving consideration to in his decision. If Obamacare had been eviscerated back in 2012, almost all of its benefits would have remained in the realm of the theoretical. Future benefits would not have appeared. It's a vastly different situation now, however. If the court ruled against the subsidies, it would endanger millions of Americans' health insurance, immediately. Health options would be taken away from people who are now benefiting from them. There would be nothing theoretical at all about the fallout. This is a big change. It's not supposed to matter all that much in the pure and rarefied legalistic heights of the Supreme Court, but it's one more thing that likely is now crossing the mind of John Roberts. Yanking the rug out from under Obamacare in 2012 would have led to a legislative mess, and the denial of a major part of a president's legacy. Doing so now would mean making health insurance unaffordable for tens of millions who currently can afford it, thanks to the subsidies. The disruption factor is a lot higher.
I'm certainly not going to venture a prediction of which way the court will rule, at least not before hearing what happens Wednesday. But even that may not give many clues. Roberts is fully capable of performing a "head fake" and asking tough and pointed questions of one side of the argument -- and then going ahead and ruling for that side anyway. The Supreme Court knows how closely their every utterance during oral arguments is dissected by legal experts, so they can at times play their cards very close to the vest indeed. To put this another way, even after Wednesday's arguments, neither side should count too many chickens too early.
If the court does rule against Obamacare, there are several quick fixes which could take place which would solve the problem almost immediately. Congress could pass a one-sentence bill that says "replace 'by the State' in this one subsection of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with 'by the State or federal government.'" That's all it would take. The entire bill would fit on one piece of paper. Since this is not likely to happen immediately (given the current makeup of Congress), another quick fix would be for every state to set up some sort of middleman arrangement, or just legislatively declare "we hereby declare that our state's official exchange is the federal exchange's webpage which deals with our state." This is, obviously, a riskier quick fix to attempt, since it would likely be challenged in court.
If the court does rule against the subsidies for states on the federal exchange and no quick fix appears, it's going to set up an interesting political dynamic. Most of the states on the federal exchange (but not all of them) are red states run by Republicans. The pressure to cobble together a state-level exchange is going to be fierce, even in the reddest areas of the country. Unfortunately for them, there is no longer federal money available to do so (the federal help only lasted during the initial Obamacare setup period). So it's going to cost the states to set up their own exchanges.
If states refuse to set up their own exchanges, then hundreds of thousands of citizens in each state are going to lose their health insurance. This is a trap the Republicans dug for themselves, really, by making such a stink when all the substandard pre-Obamacare insurance policies ended (when Obamacare exchanges first opened). Republicans took the position that nobody should lose their health insurance at all, ever, and they hit Obama hard on the issue. So how are they going to now explain their glee at the prospect of millions losing their health insurance? That's going to be an interesting political tightrope for them to attempt to walk, that's for sure.
Republicans in Congress, of course, have been saying for five years now that they're top priority is to "repeal and replace" Obamacare with something that gets the conservative seal of approval. The problem, however, is that they have been woefully unable to agree among themselves what, precisely, this would look like. They are now scrambling to come up with something (anything!) that would help convince John Roberts to vote against Obamacare. "It won't be that bad," the GOP is signaling Roberts, "because we'll have a bill to fix everything, so there won't be any massive disruption in the marketplace." The sticking point, as it has always been, is that they have no such bill. Amusingly, some prominent Republicans just penned an opinion piece for the Washington Post titled "We Have A Plan For Fixing Health Care," which does nothing more than repeat "we have a plan" over and over again -- without offering up a single detail of what that plan would be, other than some vague language about how they'll somehow magically continue the federal subsidies for the rest of this year (so people don't lose insurance mid-year). That's it. That's the only detail in their entire article. Lots of talk of "freedom" and badmouthing federal bureaucrats, but virtually no actual substance whatsoever. So it certainly doesn't seem likely, after all this time, that the Republican bill to "replace" Obamacare is going to appear any time soon. They can't even agree on a set of bullet points, so how are they going to manage to construct a piece of actual legislation?
Personally, I am hopeful that John Roberts will take into account both his own legacy and the Republicans laughable lack of any other viable plan when deciding which side to rule for. That's just my gut talking, though, I will fully admit. But I truly think that if Roberts had wanted to exterminate Obamacare, he would have done so in the earlier case. There is an easy legal route to ruling for Obamacare, and I think Roberts will take it. I could easily wind up being wrong, however. I'm not going to read too much into any questioning Roberts does this Wednesday, no matter which way it goes, because I think the oral arguments are little more than a dog-and-pony show for the public -- I think the real legal decision-making happens while the justices read over the voluminous case materials instead. While some cases are easier to predict than others (for example, I think marriage equality will be the law of the land everywhere, before summer), the Obamacare case really could go either way. We'll all just have to wait patiently until June to find out, that's about the only thing that can be said with any degree of certainty right now.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It will be genuinely stunning if Roberts takes the law down, and equally stunning if the repubs in congress respond with the simple fix needed to resolve the problem. I read elsewhere that even if the partisan hacks (judges) ruled against the ACA it would still take 2 years for that to take effect -- I can't remember why. That would mean the ACA would be entangled in the 2016 election.
How's this for another argument for the defenders ...
the use of the capitalized 'State' refers to the United States of America.
In any event, Chief Justice Roberts is too smart to do what the Republicans want him to do.
The Republican's biggest problem with the "replace" part is the fact that the entirety of Obamacare (or at least 80-90% of it) is a Republican plan. It's the plan the Heritage Foundation came up with in response to Hillary Clinton's employer-based health insurance reform during her time as First Lady. So the only other option would be "Single-payer", which I would prefer, but the GOP will never even consider.
-- the clear intent was that Congress was providing subsidies equally to all Americans, no matter what their state legislatures did
Despite the comments of someone who was intimately involved in it's creation..
We have the intent clearly spelled out..
The subsidies were to be withheld from states that don't set up their own exchanges as an incentive to force states TO set up their own exchanges..
Health options would be taken away from people who are now benefiting from them.
So???
Health options were taken away from people who were benefiting from then when TrainWreckCare started??
No one around here seemed to mind that then, eh??
This is a trap the Republicans dug for themselves, really, by making such a stink when all the substandard pre-Obamacare insurance policies ended (when Obamacare exchanges first opened).
Ex-squeeze me?? Baking powder???
REPUBLICANS dug that trap???
It's the Democrat's law, lock stock and hook/crook barrels..
It's the Democrat's trap..
So how are they going to now explain their glee at the prospect of millions losing their health insurance?
That's easy...
"It's the Democrat's frak up. Let them fix it.."
That's the explanation that will be accepted by the American people because it is dead on balls accurate..
But I truly think that if Roberts had wanted to exterminate Obamacare, he would have done so in the earlier case.
But, if Roberts was going to rule for Obamacare again, then there would not have been any reason for the SCOTUS to even TAKE the case..
There had been NO DISPUTE in the lower court rulings.. SCOTUS was under no obligation to take the case.
The simple fact that the SCOTUS did take the case is the biggest indication of how it's going to go down..
Michale
read elsewhere that even if the partisan hacks (judges) ruled against the ACA it would still take 2 years for that to take effect
Ya ever noticed how the judges are "partisan hacks" when they rule against the Left, but are wise and prescient when they rule with the Left... :D
the use of the capitalized 'State' refers to the United States of America.
If that were true then there would be no need for the word "Federal" that is peppered throughout this abortion of a law...
It's clear from the text that "state" and "federal" were two distinct entities and nar' the two shall cross..
The Republican's biggest problem with the "replace" part is the fact that the entirety of Obamacare (or at least 80-90% of it) is a Republican plan.
Yea, I have heard that one before...
So, you are saying that Democrats adopted a Republican plan?? That Democrats couldn't find anything better so they went with the Republican plan?? :D
Is THAT what you are saying??
Besides, I wasn't aware that Heritage Foundation = Republican Party
It's like saying 9/11 Truth Movement = Democrat Party..
Just because ONE group came up with an op ed that outlined some semblance of a plan 2 decades ago, doesn't make it a "Republican" plan..
Regardless, as we can clearly see, it's a train wreck, no matter WHO's plan it is...
Compared to there here and now, the status quo is looking pretty good..
Michale
Michale
In any event, Chief Justice Roberts is too smart to do what the Republicans want him to do.
Then why did the SCOTUS take the case??
That's the ONE question that cannot be answered with any answer but the one I have put forth...
There was absolutely NO REASON for the SCOTUS to take the case, other than to rule against TrainWreckCare...
Michale
Having said all of the afore...
Yea, it's possible that Roberts (or Kennedy, as CW points out) might be swayed by the oral arguments and change their minds and vote for TrainWreckCare..
But up to that point, up to the point of the oral arguments, there is simply no logical or rational reason for the SCOTUS to take the case, other than to rule against it..
Michale
the ACA it would still take 2 years for that to take effect -- I can't remember why.
I can't see how that could happen..
If the SCOTUS rules that the subsidies to states that have federal exchanges are illegal, I can't see how they would be allowed to continue for another two years...
If the SCOTUS rules that the subsidies are illegal, they would stop immediately and possibly even retro-actively...
Which means that millions and millions of Americans would owe the federal government a great deal of money..
Well, that will make Obama happy.. :D
Michale
Michale,
You only need the votes of four Supreme Court justices to hear a case. I think we all know who those four were and the Chief Justice wasn't one of them.
If there were a replace why not just call it "improve".
All "replace" is is a marketing gimmick intended to make it look like Republicans want to make it better.
They don't.
They believe if it's repealed it will never be passed again.
They're probably right since it took 40 years and an economic crisis just to get even market reforms in place.
-David
p.s. Michale, did you know Leonard Nimoy was a McGovernite? :)
http://www.thenation.com/blog/199825/mr-spock-was-mcgovernite-remembering-leonard-nimoys-live-long-and-prosper-politics
You only need the votes of four Supreme Court justices to hear a case. I think we all know who those four were and the Chief Justice wasn't one of them.
True... But why would the 4 take the case if Roberts felt the same as he did then??
Why would Roberts allow the case to be taken (he IS the *CHIEF* Justice after all) if it was just going to be the same ol same ol. It would be a COLOSSAL waste of the SCOTUS' time..
The only answer that satisfies the facts is that something is different this time around.
And the only thing that could be different, that could change the outcome, is that there is consensus amongst 5 justices..
p.s. Michale, did you know Leonard Nimoy was a McGovernite? :)
Doesn't surprise me.. All the original Trekkers are children of the 60s.. :D
Michale
Let's face it.. The original Star Trek was a Liberal's wet dream..
But then Political Correctness became the watchword with TNG and beyond. :(
Michale
The original Star Trek was a Liberal's wet dream.
Hahahahah.
Awww, c'mon. It was a good show. It dealt w/ issues faced by everyone.
But then Political Correctness became the watchword with TNG and beyond.
I always thought it was pretty true to Roddenberry's vision.
The only thing I kind of miss about the original is that I think there was more of a sense of hope about the future.
I guess it's the idealist in me ... heheh.
-David
Hahahahah.
Awww, c'mon. It was a good show. It dealt w/ issues faced by everyone.
You misunderstand. It was a GREAT show. BECAUSE it dealt with the issues of the day...
BECAUSE it was a liberal's wet dream.
You forget, at the time I was the biggest liberal you could imagine..
In a lot of ways, I still am..
At least, how liberal was defined at the time..
I always thought it was pretty true to Roddenberry's vision.
Yea, up until Beavis & Butthead (AKA Berman & Braga) took over. They tried to disavow Trek from it's roots and it was a disaster..
Remember for one season STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE became just ENTERPRISE..
That was B&B's handiwork..
Michale
At least, how liberal was defined at the time.
What do you think is the difference between then and today?
Now I'm just curious.
That was B&B's handiwork.
I only followed up through part of Next Generation. Will take your word on this.
-David
What do you think is the difference between then and today?
Now I'm just curious.
It can be summed up in one phrase...
"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend undo death your right to say it."
I simply cannot imagine a liberal of the 60s or 70s actively trying to silence opposing viewpoints...
Michale
I only followed up through part of Next Generation. Will take your word on this.
Don't get me wrong.. I LIKED the new Treks in spite of B&B....
Although Bakula's Captain Archer was pretty lame.. Captain Janeway was awesome. Sisko was pretty good too..
Picard?? eh....
Jury is still out on the Trek reboot. Pine and Quinto do a passable Kirk and Spock.. Urban's McCoy is really REALLY good...
Michale
"Let's face it.. The original Star Trek was a Liberal's wet dream.."
The original Star Trek is partly a parable of minority group assimilation into US society. The liberal mainstream US vision on that in the '60s was a multicolor society where everybody thought and acted like Americans of Northern European extraction. The assimilated can keep their cultural trinkets in their quarters(accents if they are European) but the cultural drift is basically one way. Oh, and women must wear short skirts and take the subordinate jobs.
World War Two miltary service was a major element of assimilation into US society, if your skin color was light. That was my family's ticket into the mainstream. prior to the War we weren't considered white in the census or by most WASPs. The Original Star Trek has the post WWII mindset down perfectly.
Nimoy was Jewish, and so is Shatner. Atheist Rodenberry was happy to let them riff off of this. Spock is the party assimilated Jew-Vulcan (mixed marriage) but his friend Kirk is almost entirely assimilated, save for an extraordinary level of angst not normally seen in a white guy circa 1960 or StarFleet 2260.
Liberal yes, but 60's liberal. The sort that happily got us into Vietnam before getting second thoughts.
I'm not knocking the series, I love it. Nimoy has left us, but Spock is immortal.
I'm not knocking the series, I love it. Nimoy has left us, but Spock is immortal.
Here, here!!
Michale
Just finished listening to Netanyahu's address. I hope CW does a column on it (hint hint).
Two interesting omissions in the address.
Pakistan's substantial and operational nuclear capability. Pakistan is Islamic and not especially Israel friendly, stable and/or shy about dabbling in regional extremist politics. For God's sake, who has been giving nuke technology away to Korea? Why no comparable concern from Israel. Just askin'.
Israel's rather advanced nuclear capability. Does that have no effect on Iran's calculus? Is Israel willing to do a bit of bargaining with it's N chips? Or at least officially admit to having them?
I simply cannot imagine a liberal of the 60s or 70s actively trying to silence opposing viewpoints.
Fair enough. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but fair enough.
Nimoy has left us, but Spock is immortal.
Indeed.
-David
p.s. CW's post on healthcare got me to thinking about the peculiar political pickle posed by a potential Supreme Court ruling in favor of King.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/03/1368240/-The-peculiar-pickle-posed-by-a-potential-Supreme-Court-decision-on-healthcare
Just finished listening to Netanyahu's address. I hope CW does a column on it (hint hint).
You and me both!! :D
I did a Live Blog sort of thingy here:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/02/27/ftp337/
Fair enough. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but fair enough.
Just off the top of my head, the liberal groups that tried to get Krauthammer's Global Warming op ed suppressed...
Actually, the growing movement amongst the Left to censor or suppress ANY science that refutes the Human Caused Global Warming theory is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about...
I am sure I can find many more examples in other issues as well..
The point is, the liberals of today broker no argument with their agenda and ideology...
The liberals that I grew up knowing were polite to a fault. Sometimes annoyingly so... :D
Michale
Actually, the growing movement amongst the Left to censor or suppress ANY science that refutes the Human Caused Global Warming theory is a PERFECT example of what I am talking about...
I am sure I can find many more examples in other issues as well
For example, the Journo List incident where Left Wing journalists conspired to call anyone a racist, just to silence them...
Michale
Pakistan's substantial and operational nuclear capability. Pakistan is Islamic and not especially Israel friendly, stable and/or shy about dabbling in regional extremist politics. For God's sake, who has been giving nuke technology away to Korea? Why no comparable concern from Israel. Just askin'.
Probably because Pakistan leaders are not on record saying they want to wipe Israel off that map..
That could have something to do with it, eh? :D
Israel's rather advanced nuclear capability. Does that have no effect on Iran's calculus?
I wouldn't see how.. Israel has never shown offensive interest vis a vis Iran...
Israel's actions with Iran have been strictly defensive up and down the board...
Michale
Nimoy was Jewish, and so is Shatner. Atheist Rodenberry was happy to let them riff off of this. Spock is the party assimilated Jew-Vulcan (mixed marriage) but his friend Kirk is almost entirely assimilated, save for an extraordinary level of angst not normally seen in a white guy circa 1960 or StarFleet 2260.
Little known fact. Roddenberry wrote of the idea of a sexual relationship between Kirk and Spock...
Heady stuff.. Almost dropped the book!! :D
Michale
Maybe "wrote of" is too strong a term.
"Mentioned the possibility" would likely be more accurate..
Michale
Little known fact. Roddenberry wrote of the idea of a sexual relationship between Kirk and Spock...
"There are 'Sam girls' and 'Dean girls' and – what's a 'slash fan'?"
"As in... Sam-slash-Dean. Together."
"Like, together together?"
"Yeah."
"They do know we're brothers, right?"
"Doesn't seem to matter."
"Oh, come on. That... That's just sick. We got to find this Carver Edlund."
SUPERNATURAL, The Monster At The End Of This Book
:D
Michale
I think Michale is right and that the only reason SCOTUS took this case is so that they can rule against the ACA. Republican governors will do nothing when people lose their health insurance. Rick Scott has already come out and said "It's mot my problem" and I'm sure all Republican governors feel the same way. As far as they're concerned, those getting subsidies are poor people who are only poor because they made poor decisions so they do not deserve privileges like health insurance.
I also believe they will rule against independent, bipartisan districting because it takes away state governments' freedom to gerrymander. This decision will then likely lead to another case regarding the legality of ballot propositions. I expect SCOTUS will rule that they have no legality whereby Republican states will then remove all minimum wage raises based on 2014 ballot propositions.
I think Michale is right and that the only reason SCOTUS took this case is so that they can rule against the ACA.
Why, tanks....
And planes!! :D
Rick Scott has already come out and said "It's mot my problem" and I'm sure all Republican governors feel the same way.
It ISN'T their problem..
No one batted an eye when Pelosi said, "We have to pass the legislation to find out what's in it.."
I mean, isn't that totally batshit crazy!?? Surely the better way to go would be to find out what's in it BEFORE the legislation is passed, eh??
Because, yunno, there might be some glaring bone head intentions in it that will come back and bite Democrats on the arse...
This is why legislation, especially BIG legislation, should go thru a normal process of open debate and completely transparent negotiations. Not backroom deals and kick backs and pushing it thru with parliamentary tricks and what not..
Democrats were warned that this is exactly what could happen and they chose to ignore the warnings because their agenda was more important to them than the American people..
It's the Democrats plan. Let them sink with it..
Michale
But hay, I get it..
Millions and millions of Americans shouldn't have to suffer because Obama and the Democrats were more concerned about their agenda than they were about the American people..
So, here's what I propose..
Let Obama do an Oval Office speech...
Flanked by Pelosi and Reid, Obama looks straight into the camera, look the American people in the eye and say:
"My fellow Americans. We fraked up."
Obama and the Democrat leaders should come clean with the American people and admit that TrainWreckCare was poorly written and should never have been ramrod'ed thru in the manner it was...
Obama and the Democrat leaders should apologize for all the backroom deals, the Cornhusker kickbacks, the Louisiana purchases and for the blatant lies, oh so many lies, that was part and parcel to the Affordable Care Act..
If Obama and the Democrat leaders issued a heartfelt and sincere 'mea culpa', THEN I would support the GOP cleaning up the Democrat's mess...
And ya know what?? I bet the GOP *WOULD* clean up the Democrat's mess after such an apology...
But we know that such an apology will never happen.
Because if six years under this rule has taught us anything about Barack Obama, it's that he will NEVER admit to making any mistakes..
And Democrats?? They are willing to throw Israel to the nuclear wolves of Iran to protect Obama's ego.. Gods know they wouldn't do a damn thing to upset The One...
And here we are...
Obama and the Democrats could save those millions and millions of Americans..
They just have to admit what every American already knows..
They frak'ed up...
Michale
Michale,
It's the Democrats plan. Let them sink with it..
The problem with that kind of thinking is that it dismisses the fact the many Americans will sink with it.
But, who cares about ones fellow Americans. It's not like the US is a nation or anything.
The problem with that kind of thinking is that it dismisses the fact the many Americans will sink with it.
But, who cares about ones fellow Americans. It's not like the US is a nation or anything.
I addressed that in #30....
Think of it this way...
Obama and the Democrats are in TrainWreckCare prison and are up for parole...
Before there can be even a HINT of parole, the offender must confess to the crime and show remorse for it.
If the offender doesn't do that, then it's back to the slammer for them and their "family" will suffer...
Michale
But, who cares about ones fellow Americans. It's not like the US is a nation or anything.
And I must point out that THAT attitude is the EXACT attitude that Democrats had when they were pushing this abysmal failure..
The American people were clamoring for JOBS..
But Democrats said, "Who Cares About Ones Fellow Americans!!"
Michale
All I am saying is that there is a LOT to apologize for...
Obama and the Democrats could get a LOT of Americans on their side if they would make that apology in a heartfelt and sincere way, rather than simply as a prelude to blaming Republicans for everything..
Michale
Can we put to rest the TOTAL BS claim that Republicans don't have an alternative to TrainWreckCare??
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/opinion/atlas-obamacare-poor-middle-class/index.html
I mean, seriously...
Michale
Wow, a CNN editorial. I'm impressed. CNN, a name you can trust if don't have very high standards. CNN stands for Crap, Not News.
Well, I would point you to the Burr, Hatch, Upton legislation that would actually accomplish what TrainWreckCare SAYS it accomplishes.
But it's a Republican idea so I doubt it would get much traction around here..
CNN stands for Crap, Not News.
Unless it's toe'ing the Democrat Party line..
Then it's gospel...
:D
Michale
"Unless it's toe'ing the Democrat Party line.."
No, no, it's uniformly superficial and unreliable.
As for Burr, Hatch and Upton, it offers fewer consumer protections, weaker standards and higher deductibles for a given level of coverage. It many respects more complicated than AHC...but as far as I can tell, it's not even finalized. Would Republicans in general even back it?
Or it just a false front designed to make it look like Republicans are working on an alternative. A public relations gambit, pure and simple. Talking point for the talk media drumbeat, to spam out on E-mails. That's what I think it is. We'll see.
As for Burr, Hatch and Upton, it offers fewer consumer protections, weaker standards and higher deductibles for a given level of coverage. It many respects more complicated than AHC...but as far as I can tell, it's not even finalized. Would Republicans in general even back it?
Or it just a false front designed to make it look like Republicans are working on an alternative. A public relations gambit, pure and simple. Talking point for the talk media drumbeat, to spam out on E-mails. That's what I think it is. We'll see.
Ya'all say there is "NO PLAN"...
I show you a plan...
It offers many things that the Democrats crap ware doesn't...
Insurance across state lines..
Tort reform...
Those two things right there would do wonders for health care costs..
But Democrats won't entertain those ideas because they are beholden to lobbyists..
Remind me again how Democrats are different??
I seem to have forgotten...
Michale
You don't like the GOP plan?
Fine... Ya'all don't like ANYTHING GOP, so it's not as if that is an earth shattering revelation, eh??
But drop the fantasy that there is no GOP plan..
There is..
Ya'all just don't like it..
Michale
But drop the fantasy that there is no GOP plan.
There's a GOP plan. Blame Democrats and elect more Republicans.
There's no GOP plan for healthcare.
-David
There's no GOP plan for healthcare.
Keep telling yerself that, David.. You might even believe it some day.. :D
I have already proven that there is.. I even provided the name..
But, facts be damned..
Everything good is Democrat.. Everything bad is Republican..
Party uber alles..
Michale