Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, if you go back to post #6 in this thread, my vote would be for the GOP to make the small fix to the four words in question and let the law stand. But I know that won't happen. So, it will be what it will be. The fallout of whatever the GOP decided to do or not do will become an issue in the 2016 election.
For the record, I think the SC is going to rule for the defendants in this case.
It's not a "fix." This wasn't a mistake. Gruber has told us more than once that Team Obama purposefully wrote the law this way. Obama and Nancy can take her big gavel and shove it. It's not anyone else's jobs to clean up their messes.
Again...what you are suggesting is to hurt other people because of partisan politics. Thats such a great thing. Oh wait...no it is not....
The Democrats hurt people by ramming through a bad law with zero Republican consultation or support.
The only way to fix that law is to get rid of it.
Especially when it is 2500 pages long (that no one read before it passed) with another 20,000 pages of regulations (that no one is reading) still being formulated right now.
Republicans should keep their fingerprints OFF of Obamacare.
If they touch or change it, then, yes, they do own it.
That would be like going into a crime scene before the police got there and leaving your fingerprints on the murder weapon.
No wonder there are so many liberals here carping about how Republicans need to "do something."
Sadly, there are Republicans in Congress dumb or cowardly enough to fall for it.
Sometime before month's end the Supreme Court ruling in King v Burwell will be announced.
This is a challenge to Obamacare which says in essence that the admin is violating its own law. The law clearly says that Obamacare subsidies be provided only through state health care exchanges. The problem was that 36 states declined to create an exchange, so the admin decided that the subsidies would also be provided via the federal exchange. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution says that ALL legislative powers belong to the Congress. The executive branch (Obama) has no power to legislate.
If the ruling goes against the admin, as I believe it should and will, the ball is now in the court of the GOP-controlled Congress. The question then is, how should they respond?
I see three basic options. One is to do nothing. Obamacare as we know it would be thrown into chaos. Estimates are that about 6-7 million Americans would lose their insurance overnight.
Another option that has been suggested by several GOP senators is to extend the federal exchange subsidies until sometime in 2017, when we'll have a new prez, and the whole question of Obamacare can be revisited. Tea Party favorite Ron Johnson (R, WI) is among those leading the charge on this.
The last option would be complete capitulation to the admin and enacting a permanent change to the language such that the fed. exchange can offer subsidies. This will probably not happen, but still it is an option. There is really a fourth option, which is to enact a change, whether temporary or permanent, in exchange for concessions from the admin on items that might not otherwise survive the veto pen.
What do you think the GOP-controlled Congress should do?
The last option. They would work with the Ds to pass the 4 word amendment to the ACA to satisfy a partisan SCOTUS ruling.
It's not a "fix." This wasn't a mistake. Gruber has told us more than once that Team Obama purposefully wrote the law this way. Obama and Nancy can take her big gavel and shove it. It's not anyone else's jobs to clean up their messes.
Exactly right. The provision was an attempt to get the states to open exchanges, but it only worked as planned in 14 out of 50 states. And the law couldn't have been more clear, even taking pains to define what was meant by 'state.' It was not a typo or drafting error.
And the poster you responded to would not even admit that this was a 'problem' created by the Democrats who wrote and passed it. Yet he/she wants a 'fix.' Go figure.
...
Republicans should keep their fingerprints OFF of Obamacare.
If they touch or change it, then, yes, they do own it.
That would be like going into a crime scene before the police got there and leaving your fingerprints on the murder weapon.
No wonder there are so many liberals here carping about how Republicans need to "do something."
Sadly, there are Republicans in Congress dumb or cowardly enough to fall for it.
IMO it's more like your next door neighbor kills everyone in his house and then turns his gun on himself and commits suicide. You hear all the shots, call 911, and stand outside until police arrive to ensure that no neighborhood ruffian runs in to steal the gun.
Republicans are not going to 'own' Obamacare by passing a temporary extension of fed. subsidies until (say) August 2017, which IIRC is Sen. Ron Johnson's proposal. This also will have the effect of forcing Hillary Clinton to outline her plan to handle this in 2017. This makes it a 2016 election issue. Otherwise Hillary can just point out that she was not in the loop when Obamacare was passed (she was Secy of State at the time), and she can just kind of rope-a-dope the issue.
How shoud the GOP congress respond to an admin loss in King v Burwell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Sometime before month's end the Supreme Court ruling in King v Burwell will be announced.
This is a challenge to Obamacare which says in essence that the admin is violating its own law. The law clearly says that Obamacare subsidies be provided only through state health care exchanges. The problem was that 36 states declined to create an exchange, so the admin decided that the subsidies would also be provided via the federal exchange. Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution says that ALL legislative powers belong to the Congress. The executive branch (Obama) has no power to legislate.
If the ruling goes against the admin, as I believe it should and will, the ball is now in the court of the GOP-controlled Congress. The question then is, how should they respond?
I see three basic options. One is to do nothing. Obamacare as we know it would be thrown into chaos. Estimates are that about 6-7 million Americans would lose their insurance overnight.
Another option that has been suggested by several GOP senators is to extend the federal exchange subsidies until sometime in 2017, when we'll have a new prez, and the whole question of Obamacare can be revisited. Tea Party favorite Ron Johnson (R, WI) is among those leading the charge on this.
The last option would be complete capitulation to the admin and enacting a permanent change to the language such that the fed. exchange can offer subsidies. This will probably not happen, but still it is an option. There is really a fourth option, which is to enact a change, whether temporary or permanent, in exchange for concessions from the admin on items that might not otherwise survive the veto pen.
What do you think the GOP-controlled Congress should do?
Take another vote to repeal the ACA.
That's been the only thing they've done so far, they've done it so often over a period of years and they've achieved such good results from the strategy.
That's been the only thing they've done so far, they've done it so often over a period of years and they've achieved such good results from the strategy.
Typical Hee Haw-style commentary from Old Gringo. They're not going to take another vote on repeal in response to the ruling. Anyone who thinks that has no idea what this is about.
But since you mention it, Republicans have in fact achieved good results with their strategy. They won 63 seats to take the house less than 8 months after it was signed into law. And they won 9 Senate seats, beating expectations, and took the Senate last year. And to a great extent, it was based on opposition to Obamacare.
Typical Hee Haw-style commentary from Old Gringo. They're not going to take another vote on repeal in response to the ruling. Anyone who thinks that has no idea what this is about.
But since you mention it, Republicans have in fact achieved good results with their strategy. They won 63 seats to take the house less than 8 months after it was signed into law. And they won 9 Senate seats, beating expectations, and took the Senate last year. And to a great extent, it was based on opposition to Obamacare.
except Obama won in '12, proudly taking credit for ACA.
POTUS is the Super Bowl.
As for the aftermath of this decision, NY Times had a great column on it, but at the end of the day, if subsidies go down, 2016 will be a horrible year (GOP Senate) as 22 GOP Senators are up in states with large ACA subsidized populations. And while this poll took time to set up, the GOP is too fragmented to get any patch implemented.
If the defendants win, I would expect to see a narrower HC win in 16, and more GOP Senators survive.
except Obama won in '12, proudly taking credit for ACA.
POTUS is the Super Bowl.
As for the aftermath of this decision, NY Times had a great column on it, but at the end of the day, if subsidies go down, 2016 will be a horrible year (GOP Senate) as 22 GOP Senators are up in states with large ACA subsidized populations. And while this poll took time to set up, the GOP is too fragmented to get any patch implemented.
If the defendants win, I would expect to see a narrower HC win in 16, and more GOP Senators survive.
This is of course true, Obama won in 2012, but I believe he won in spite of Obamacare, not because of it. Obamacare approval was only about 41% on Nov 1, 2012.
Obama largly won on the basis of identity politics. He lost 59% of the white vote, but won 80% of the non-white vote. He also won the gay vote by 76%, and the female vote by 55%, while Romney won the male vote by only 52%. Obama was just better at piling up overwhelming numbers in the identity groups that were predisposed to support him. Romney probably didn't even try much to do that.
I don't know if I agree that POTUS is the Super Bowl. The US Constitution is designed to give us branches of gov't that check each other. But we have made strides towards an imperial presidency in recent times. If the admin wins King v Burwell, it means that they can literally rewrite legislation passed by the Congress, so maybe you are right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How shoud the GOP congress respond to an admin loss in King v Burwell?
