Kolya on 29/6/2015 at 20:12
It's nice to see the US lead again.
[video=youtube;Dwf5RrYsvL0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwf5RrYsvL0[/video]
heywood on 29/6/2015 at 21:17
Quote Posted by Pyrian
It's not "very clear" at all, since the other ruling contradicts the law in multiple places (e.g. the law would explicitly require outreach programs to inform the very same specified individuals of benefits they're, oops, not actually getting; and the law would explicitly establish their eligibility for benefits that, oops, they're not actually getting), whereas the ruling chosen merely interprets that the fact that Federally established Exchanges are equivalent to State established Exchanges effectively overrides the cited drafting error.
(
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/scotus-opinion-document-aca-subsidies/index.html) source
Actually, I think it is pretty clear what the law says, and also pretty clear that it leaves a hole. Read section 1401 of the PPACA. It specifically includes State exchanges established under section 1311 and says nothing about federally established exchanges authorized by section 1321. Several parts of the law, including section 1401 and some other sections you make reference to, were presumably written under the assumption that the states would get on board with the requirement to establish exchanges. Section 1321, which authorizes HHS to establish exchanges, was intended to be a stop-gap to allow citizens to comply with the mandatory insurance requirement while a state was still getting its shit together. What the writers did not anticipate is that a large number of states would intentionally not fulfill their role in implementing the ACA. That includes states leaving federal money on the table by not expanding Medicare to fill the coverage gap, which is an even bigger hole in the legislation that leaves about 4 million people in the gap. Basically, I think what happened here is a bunch of red states decided to act like disobedient children, and it has holes errors in the ACA that the writers didn't anticipate. But that's what the Congress passed and the President signed. It's not the Court's responsibility or within Court's power to amend poorly constructed legislation. That's the Congress' responsibility, and I think the Supreme Court walked all over the Congress on this one.
Tony_Tarantula on 29/6/2015 at 22:46
Regardless of what anyone's opinion on ACA is, it's important to stop thinking of it as "Obamacare" because it's not his idea. Look up the original Heritage proposal and recognize that it was a plan generated by Republicans with significant "input" from the healthcare industry. If you don't do that then you're just spouting hot air when assessing the law.
Despite all the bellyaching in public about how much the ostensibly hate the law, most establishment Republicans are willing to fight to protect it. Some have vested financial interests in doing so.
Also I'm not a lawyer here, but:
Quote:
It's not "very clear" at all, since the other ruling contradicts the law in multiple places (e.g. the law would explicitly require outreach programs to inform the very same specified individuals of benefits they're, oops, not actually getting; and the law would explicitly establish their eligibility for benefits that, oops, they're not actually getting), whereas the ruling chosen merely interprets that the fact that Federally established Exchanges are equivalent to State established Exchanges effectively overrides the cited drafting error.
Even an undergraduate pre-law student could tell you that "interpreting" a law as constitutional when the text of the law doesn't pass constitutional muster isn't how it's supposed to work. The historical standard has been that either the text of the law being unconstitutional(numerous examples) or the intent of the law being unconstitutional (Jim Crow laws are the best example) means a law should be struck down. The "or" standard is a lot different from the "and" standard that Roberts is arguing for.
Saying "oops, it's just a drafting error, let us fix it for you!" is a new way of doing things and it sets an extremely poor precedent. Under that logic literally any law could be interpreted as constitutional because all the Supreme Court has to do is claim that they can read the author's minds, understand the intent of the law ,and that the intent is benign.
Not that Robert's decision was much of a surprise though. He has very consistently slanted towards large federal government powers, with gay marriage being a notable exception.
Tony_Tarantula on 29/6/2015 at 22:53
Quote Posted by heywood
Basically, I think what happened here is a bunch of red states decided to act like disobedient children, and it has holes errors in the ACA that the writers didn't anticipate.
That's the intent, but again you need to view things through the perspective of how the federal government was originally framed. The federal government simply dictating "get on board with the program or else" isn't ever how it was intended and their ability to do is, at least in theory, heavily limited due to the 10th amendment.
In practice the federal government often does that unofficially by using grants to states as bait to go along. States don't play ball, they don't get the money.
For this instance it's a bit more substantial than states just "acting like disobedient children". In some cases the costs states would have incurred through their own exchanges and subsidy programs would have substantially out-matched the federal founds they would have received in return. They would have lost huge amounts of cash net.
Pyrian on 29/6/2015 at 23:24
Quote Posted by heywood
Actually, I think it is pretty clear what the law says, and also pretty clear that it leaves a hole.
Actually, I know you think that, and actually, I already refuted it, and actually, you haven't countered that refutation. Actually. ;) Indeed you didn't address any of the counterpoints at all.
Quote Posted by heywood
It's not the Court's responsibility or within Court's power to amend poorly constructed legislation.
If a law contradicts itself, the Supreme Court has not only the ability but indeed the responsibility to resolve the issue, and to do so in a way that preserves the law as much as possible.
Tony_Tarantula on 30/6/2015 at 01:57
Quote Posted by Pyrian
If a law contradicts itself, the Supreme Court has not only the ability but indeed the responsibility to resolve the issue, and to do so in a way that preserves the law as much as possible.
No, they don't.
Directly from the constitution:
Quote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects
Their responsibilities are very clearly to handle cases which involve international entities, suits involving the US government, between states, between citizens of different states. (note that they've delegated some of that authority to federal court districts).
So yes, they have the responsibility to resolve the issue. Their responsibility ends there.
Nowhere is the responsibility to amend or redefine laws to avoid contradictions listed. Also not found is the obligation to "preserve as much of the law as possible".
Please tell me where you got your information, because I'm hoping you just read some bad reporting rather than having made that up on the spot.
icemann on 30/6/2015 at 03:39
I'll never understand why anyone would be against universal healthcare for everyone, rather than just for those that can afford it. Otherwise you end up with a system that is only for the rich and leaving the poor to go and die in the gutter when they don't have any money. And that's just plain wrong in a developed country. No excuse for that type of line of thinking at all.
In Australia we've had universal healthcare since 1975 and it's never caused any major problems for the economy or whatever.
Tony_Tarantula on 30/6/2015 at 04:21
Quote Posted by icemann
I'll never understand why anyone would be against universal healthcare for everyone, rather than just for those that can afford it. Otherwise you end up with a system that is only for the rich and leaving the poor to go and die in the gutter when they don't have any money. And that's just plain wrong in a developed country. No excuse for that type of line of thinking at all.
In Australia we've had universal healthcare since 1975 and it's never caused any major problems for the economy or whatever.
(
http://www.johntreed.com/debate.html) Dishonest debate Tactics: #5, #8 and #20.
Apologies if you are genuinely unaware, but the ACA doesn't work quite the same way as healthcare in the UK, Australia, or Canada.
One thing that it definitely is NOT: "universal healthcare for everyone, rather than just those that can afford it". The ACA expands coverage primarily by requiring that everyone buy the product under penalty of law, which is assisted by providing government subsidies that reduce costs, but which go directly to the insurance companies and do not ever pass through the hands of the insured. It also mandates that (in most cases) employersoffer health care coverage that complies with the ACA's specifications.
The end result has been to increase the number of people who are insured, but to have a dramatic negative impact on every other metric by which the quality of care is measured. Co-Pays have increased dramatically and (
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/10/23/now-there-can-be-no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-non-group-premiums-in-nearly-all-states/) the average cost of care has increased by 24.4% over what it would have cost without the ACA. F I have(think fast food assistant manager and other near-minimum wage jobs) who saw their cost for insurance nearly
Inline Image:
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/theapothecary/files/2014/10/PremiumIncreasesKowalski.pngAll of which is utterly predictable: hand corporations a captive audience for their product and they can then abuse their customers with relatively little in the way of repercussions. You could argue that this was exactly what the Heritage Foundation had in mind when they proposed health care reform in the early 90's but that's not directly relevant to the discussion here.
gkkiller on 30/6/2015 at 05:38
Maybe I just don't understand politics or legal jargon, but I fail to see how this could be anything but a step forward.
faetal on 30/6/2015 at 07:43
It's a shuffle forward with an amazing looking hat on basically.
The UK won't remain free for long either. The private health industry which has been looking to crack open the UK market for decades has finally got a foot hold with the 2011 Health & Social Care act. The vast majority of new contracts are going to private providers (many of which donated to the Conservative party; many of the latter have relevant investment interests set to grow with the dishing out of contracts etc...) and real terms funding is being gradually reduced, probably to do the same thing as with British Rail - make the service under-perform, offer full privatisation as the solution. After which, the UK can look forward to a profit-oriented healthcare system which bankrupts people or leaves them to die.
/diatribe
