Mitch’s first big headache: How to convince conservatives he can’t “repeal Obamacare”

[KingOrfeo]

Divided in favor of the Republicans.

Closely divided; that's why control keeps swinging back and forth. That's why voter-suppression is relevant and why the RW thinks it necessary, because so many elections are so close that a few thousand or hundred or even dozen votes can make the difference.

 

[Killswitch]

The nation is already divided, into two almost-halves with incompatible world-views political and cultural, each seeing the other as not merely wrong but The Bad Guys, and it has been so for decades and has been growing steadily more so for the past decade -- have you not noticed?!

It's not divided on the need for an immigration plan. All the democrats want it, all the Mexicans want it and half the republicans want it.

Watching Mitch and John try to wiggle out of this one will be fun.

End of the day it will be a big win for Dems, Obama, Immigrants and the gop will be left out in the cold.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's not divided on the need for an immigration plan. All the democrats want it, all the Mexicans want it and half the republicans want it.

But the other half of the Republicans -- in the base, that is -- are really angry and really noisy, as W learned when he tried immigration reform.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Amberchgo]

How hard can it be? After all Obama convinced the country Obamacare would save them money and they could keep their doctor.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

How hard can it be? After all Obama convinced the country Obamacare would save them money and they could keep their doctor.

And the vast majority did.

Of course, folks like Stupid Amber focus on the outliers.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Let's see, 60% of Governors, 70% of state legislatures, the House and Senate majorities. I wouldn't call those across the board majorities, closely divided.

Gerrymandering has a lot to do with that, of course, the Pubs have been very vigorous in locking in their temporary institutional advantages. Also, 60% of governors can still represent a closely divided electorate, if, e.g., each of them won by only 3-4% or so.

Compare aggregate votes cast nationwide for Dem and Pub candidates, and I think you'll find the margin shrinks.

 

[Busybody]

the BEST idea I heard about ObolaCare is


let REPOZ enact their OWN law

give peeps the CHOICE to go

ObolaCare

or

RepohCare

 

[unregistered]

 

[toubab]

How hard can it be? After all Obama convinced the country Obamacare would save them money and they could keep their doctor.

Stupid voters even bought into shit like this in 2008:

"... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...."

Unfuckingbelievable.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The fact is liberalism, the Democrat agenda, Obama and his agenda, has been repudiated by the American voting majority. It's a sad day for the left, so get used to it. Big government liberalism is coming to an end. Own it.

Eh? In this year's midterms, "big government liberalism" was not even an option on the table.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The fact is liberalism, the Democrat agenda, Obama and his agenda, has been repudiated by the American voting majority. It's a sad day for the left, so get used to it. Big government liberalism is coming to an end. Own it.

Want to go on record with an early prediction about which party will win the 2016 Presidential election? How about a prediction about how many of the 24 Republican Senate seats up for re-election will remain in Republican hands?

I'm not afraid of going on the record with my predictions (unlike you) so I'll say that in 2016 the Democratic candidate will win the Presidency and the Republicans will lose at least 8 of the 24 seats they currently hold.

Feel free to quote me for posterity.

I look forward to watching you tap-dance to avoid answering this challenge. Snivelling cowards such as yourself don't like to go on the record, mainly because you lack the guts to do so.

 

[Busybody]

Stupid voters even bought into shit like this in 2008:

"... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...."

Unfuckingbelievable.

that Berliners stood en masse to listen to him, that he won No Bell Putz Prize was sheer RACISM

 

[RobDownSouth]

Stupid voters even bought into shit like this in 2008:

"... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...."

Unfuckingbelievable.

Same challenge above goes for Not-Republicans such as you.

If you're not scared, that is.

 

[toubab]

Same challenge above goes for Not-Republicans such as you.

If you're not scared, that is.

It's too early to make a prediction. I'll let you know when I have one, if I'm still around these parts.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Google = 'Rubio Ryan Health Care Plan'

 

[RobDownSouth]

Google = 'Rubio Ryan Health Care Plan'

Let us know when they get some specifics. Right now it's wishful thinking and fairy dust.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Sure you want that?

Monday, Nov 10, 2014 11:22 AM EST

SCOTUS could roil the GOP: How new threat to Obamacare may backfire on the right

Republicans could finally realize their dream of seeing Obamacare eviscerated -- and they may not like the outcome

Simon Maloy

On Friday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in King v. Burwell, a case that threatens to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance tax credits in most states and render health insurance unaffordable for millions of current beneficiaries. That the court agreed to take up the case is upsetting, but not entirely surprising. The legal reasoning of the plaintiff’s argument against the ACA is highly dubious at best, and the case’s supporters were gambling hugely on the willingness of the court’s conservative bloc to prioritize ideology and partisanship over sound legal reasoning and common sense. Given that there are at least four Obamacare opponents on the court, and it only takes four justices to grant a case a hearing, it would seem that their wager was well placed.

So now that the court’s conservatives are getting their second bite at the Obamacare apple, will the law actually be undone? Obviously it’s impossible to say for sure. It’s difficult to envision any scenario in which Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. Anthony Kennedy’s famous for being the court’s “swing vote,” though he voted to vacate the law the last time around. Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, opted merely to wound the law instead of kill it outright. One could argue that since Roberts already passed up the less preposterous legal route to killing the law that he’s unlikely to go for it this time, but at this point it’s all conjecture.

Regardless, the odds of the law’s survival were higher heading into Friday than they were coming out. This is obviously not the scenario the White House wanted to be in, and they put out a statement on Friday denouncing the lawsuit as “just another partisan attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act.”

But, for the moment, let’s assume that the SCOTUS conservatives carry the day and successfully eviscerate the Affordable Care Act by invalidating the tax credits offered through the 36 state exchanges run by the federal government. In many ways this would seem to offer an ideal political scenario for the Republicans. A legislative repeal of the Affordable Care Act isn’t going to happen, even with a Republican-controlled Congress, owing to the president’s veto pen. But if the Supreme Court steps in and guts the law for them, then they get their preferred policy outcome without having to do any of the actual dirty work. No fuss, no muss.

But it’s not at all that simple. The biggest political challenge facing the GOP is the fact that “repealing” or otherwise damaging the Affordable Care Act, while ideologically satisfying, carries with it some very real consequences. The states that opted not to create their own health exchanges – the states that would lose their health insurance subsidies if SCOTUS rules against the government – are mostly Republican-governed states. The sudden unavailability of those tax credits would mean that a lot of newly insured people in those states would no longer be able to afford their health coverage. They will expect their elected officials to do something to mitigate the damage, which would be catastrophic. Close to 5 million people across the country would see their health insurance costs spike.

That would pose an awkward situation for Republicans in the statehouses and Congress: Do they stick to their ideologically acceptable rigid opposition to Obamacare, or do they work to fix the law? Congress has the ability (if not the willingness) to pass a quick legislative fix to solve the problems. Governors could agree to set up exchanges within the state to keep the subsidies flowing. These are the simplest paths to resolving the issue, and there would be intense pressure to get either or both done.

Consider for a moment just how many governors and senators from Healthcare.gov states are considered to be contenders for the GOP presidential nomination: Chris Christie, Scott Walker, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Rob Portman, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Hard-line Obamacare opponents like Cruz and Jindal probably wouldn’t be swayed (Cruz actually roots for the subsidies to be ripped away, calling them “insidious”), but others have at least shown some willingness to work within the law. Christie and Kasich both accepted the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid, and Pence pitched an alternative plan for expanding Medicaid, though it was shot down by the feds.

Republicans could end up seriously divided on the issue as they face down howling complaints from constituents, congressional Democrats and the White House to do the right thing and help restore health coverage to those who lost it.

The Republicans and conservatives who clamor for the elimination of the Affordable Care Act tend to carefully avoid discussing the inevitable results of the law’s demise: exploding health insurance costs, spikes in uninsurance, general chaos in the health insurance market, and the very real chance that people will die. The GOP doesn’t have a plan for what comes after the ACA, they just want it gone, no matter the consequences. If the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, they’d be forced to face down those consequences, and there’s a good chance they won’t like what they see.

Issue: Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321* of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

SCOTUS Blog
Patrick Wyrick
Monday, November 10, 2014 (excerpted)

All this to say that King v. Burwell presents a straightforward question of statutory interpretation, the sort judges decide routinely and readily. The case is a symposium-worthy blockbuster not because of the question presented, but because of the statutory vehicle that delivered us that question.

But because the ACA is involved, it seems all bets are off. We have seen sustained efforts to transform the case into something more complicated and partisan than it ought to be, and I expect those efforts will ramp up considerably now that the Court has agreed to hear the case. Already, in a hedge against a potential loss, a false narrative is being created: that resolution of the case in the challengers’ favor would require the abandonment of all basic principles of textualism. This way, a loss can be blamed on politics, rather than on the true culprit: the IRS’s decision to execute the law it wishes Congress had enacted, rather (than) the law Congress actually enacted.

Resist the temptation to feed into this politicization of the case. Certiorari was granted not because of partisanship, but because the issue presented is of national importance, a prompt resolution is needed, and the lower courts are confused.

Resist the temptation to transform the simple interpretative question presented into a policy debate. When the Court reaches the merits of the case, it will do so not based on partisanship, but based on straightforward application of the textual interpretative tools that the Justices have applied time and again to determine whether the executive branch has gone further than the law allows.

Application of those interpretive rules will likely result in the IRS rule failing under the first step in the Chevron analysis — there simply isn’t any ambiguity to be found in 26 U.S.C. § 36B, and it is Section 36B that controls. That section is where limitations on the availability of the credits and subsidies are found. Indeed, that section is the only section of the ACA where such limitations would be naturally found.

If you have any doubt on this score, ask yourself why is it that no one disputes that the credits and subsidies are only available to help purchase insurance on these newly created exchanges? If the goal of the ACA is to increase everyone’s access to affordable healthcare, why wouldn’t the ACA allow anyone with the requisite financial need get a credit or subsidy to help them buy insurance, regardless of the marketplace? Well, because Section 36B says so. Everyone seems to agree then, that Section 36B establishes limits on the IRS’s ability to grant tax credits and subsidies. It’s just that the IRS has chosen to cherry-pick which limitations it abides by, and which it ignores.

Because Section 36B is the section that governs when it comes to limits on these credits and subsidies, the question then, is what did Congress intend when it drafted Section 36B. The text provides the answer, and an unambiguous answer it is. The phrase “Exchange established by a state under Section 1311” leaves nothing to the IRS’s imagination.

*********************************

And even if such a transformation of the text were possible, the result would undermine Congress’s very specific intent with the limitation it placed in Section 36B, which was to induce the states to cooperate with Congress’s desire to have the states establish and operate exchanges by conditioning the availability of credits and subsidies on the states establishing an exchange — an intent confirmed by the ACA’s architect, Jonathan Gruber, when he proclaimed in 2012 that “I guess I’m enough of a believer in democracy to think that when the voters in states see that by not setting up an Exchange, the politicians in their state are costing state residents hundreds of millions and billions of dollars that they’ll eventually throw the guys out. But I don’t know that for sure. And that is really the ultimate threat, is: Will people understand that, gee, if your governor doesn’t set up an Exchange, you’re losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens?”

The IRS’s rule flatly undermines that intent, and with disastrous results.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/symposium-king-v-burwell-a-simple-case/

*Certain to be at issue in resolution of the case is the following language in Sec. 1321 of the ACA:

SEC. 1321. STATE FLEXIBILITY IN OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF EXCHANGES AND RELATED REQUIREMENTS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARDS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall, as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, issue regulations setting standards for meeting the requirements under this title, and the amendments made by this title, with respect to—

(A) the establishment and operation of Exchanges (including SHOP Exchanges);

(B) the offering of qualified health plans through such Exchanges;

(C) the establishment of the reinsurance and risk adjustment programs under part V; and

(D) such other requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate.

The preceding sentence shall not apply to standards for requirements under subtitles A and C (and the amendments made by such subtitles) for which the Secretary issues regulations under the Public Health Service Act.

(2) CONSULTATION.—In issuing the regulations under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consult with the National Association

of Insurance Commissioners and its members and with health insurance issuers, consumer organizations, and such other individuals as the Secretary selects in a manner designed to ensure balanced representation among interested parties.

(b) STATE ACTION.—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) 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 notforprofit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State

If SCOTUS recognizes that the enabling language of Sec. 1321 stands in direct contradiction with the restrictive language of Sec. 36B, and that the Secretary of HHS arguably has the authority to "establish and operate" an exchange regardless of a state's affirmative decision to decline to create one, then it is anyone's guess at how SCOTUS will resolve that internal statutory conflict.

 

[toubab]

Issue: Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321* of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.



*Certain to be at issue in resolution of the case is the following language in Sec. 1321 of the ACA:



If SCOTUS recognizes that the enabling language of Sec. 1321 stands in direct contradiction with the restrictive language of Sec. 36B, and that the Secretary of HHS arguably has the authority to "establish and operate" an exchange regardless of a state's affirmative decision to decline to create one, then it is anyone's guess at how SCOTUS will resolve that internal statutory conflict.

I think we know how eight members of SCOTUS will view this. It's only John Roberts who is indecipherable.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I think we know how eight members of SCOTUS will view this. It's only John Roberts who is indecipherable.

I don't think Roberts is any more indecipherable than Kennedy. The point is, everybody is focused on the ruling's impact on the ACA, but the far more important legal issue is statutory construction. And where language in a statute contradicts or negates other provisions within the same statute with no mitigating language elsewhere which references that conflict, people have no guidance on which part of the law is controlling. There is no overarching rule we can follow.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Did he not get it right, in light of the recent confession, in calling it a tax?

 

[toubab]

I don't think Roberts is any more indecipherable than Kennedy. The point is, everybody is focused on the ruling's impact on the ACA, but the far more important legal issue is statutory construction. And where language in a statute contradicts or negates other provisions within the same statute with no mitigating language elsewhere which references that conflict, people have no guidance on which part of the law is controlling. There is no overarching rule we can follow.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/11/anthony-kennedy-and-the-affordable-care-act/