WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court dealt a potentially major blow to President Obama's health care law Tuesday, ruling that participants in health exchanges run by the federal government in 34 states are not eligible for tax subsidies.
The benefits of the reforms health care law. On the other side we have people who seem to think that this is the slow death march to socialism which is utterly incorrect.
But this is an outcome of trying to pass a huge law that reworks a sector of the economy that is a substantial fraction of annual GDP. And that human laws aren't perfect and that human legislation this highly imperfect in most cases.
So we see the logical outcome. It hints at the need for further reworking of a better health care law that addresses some of our significant deficiencies in the area. All too often people want a one time or one shot fix to the problem which isn't happening. This initially should've taken more time or more care to craft.
But people are too damn impatient and want to see a result now.
Here's to hoping we can find a workable solution for healthcare it will likely mean that people come both sides will be furious but it's going to be a pressing issue for the next few years.
whether you were for it or against it in the first place, what you've got right now is a mishmash of what passed, what survived legal challenge intact and what has been enacted by state governments as intended. And you've got concerns about the scope of presidential power to make this work in light of what has and hasn't happened without much of any support from the Congress.
The benefits of the reforms health care law. On the other side we have people who seem to think that this is the slow death march to socialism which is utterly incorrect.
But this is an outcome of trying to pass a huge law that reworks a sector of the economy that is a substantial fraction of annual GDP. And that human laws aren't perfect and that human legislation this highly imperfect in most cases.
So we see the logical outcome. It hints at the need for further reworking of a better health care law that addresses some of our significant deficiencies in the area. All too often people want a one time or one shot fix to the problem which isn't happening. This initially should've taken more time or more care to craft.
But people are too damn impatient and want to see a result now.
Here's to hoping we can find a workable solution for healthcare it will likely mean that people come both sides will be furious but it's going to be a pressing issue for the next few years.
[shrug]. Impatient? They've been ostensibly working on HC since the Clinton administration. I think the idea was to do something and then fix it. But, the act of doing something brought the government to a complete halt because the minority party decided to never let that happen again.
This is the kind of thing that could have been fixed in subsequent legislation, if legislation were something that was still possible.
As it is, it takes a pretty incredible interpretation of the law to support this legal argument
I think we both could agree that the revamping of the healthcare sector was necessary. Imperative, even.
But yes inpatient. Trying out a one-size-fits-all all law in one shot signals impatience. There are certainly political realities about this where if they had done minor changes they may not have been able to push through anything more.
But by doing minor changes people might have been able to see the added benefits of carefully crafted laws. This may have added further impetus for additional health care reform.
But beyond that impatience is apparent that they didn't address several significant flaws with the existing healthcare sector. Employer sponsored health insurance is but one example. It's not an unknown problem. That signals a rush to get through a major reworking of the healthcare sector instead of a smart reworking.
because I'm sure it's not long for this forum, but on the one hand you had a sense that this was some sort of "noble lie" and on the other an equally fictional commitment to an alternative reform package that didn't exist until after this was passed and even then was pretty trifling.
I think we both could agree that the revamping of the healthcare sector was necessary. Imperative, even.
But yes inpatient. Trying out a one-size-fits-all all law in one shot signals impatience. There are certainly political realities about this where if they had done minor changes they may not have been able to push through anything more.
But by doing minor changes people might have been able to see the added benefits of carefully crafted laws. This may have added further impetus for additional health care reform.
But beyond that impatience is apparent that they didn't address several significant flaws with the existing healthcare sector. Employer sponsored health insurance is but one example. It's not an unknown problem. That signals a rush to get through a major reworking of the healthcare sector instead of a smart reworking.
I guess minor changes might have worked. But what minor changes? And who will see the benefit? And the one thing that NO ONE but the crafters of this law have done is suggest anything that will expand access to health care for folks who aren't poor enough to have medicaid and can't afford it on their own. How long do they have to wait while we look for a perfect solution?
whether you were for it or against it in the first place, what you've got right now is a mishmash of what passed, what survived legal challenge intact and what has been enacted by state governments as intended. And you've got concerns about the scope of presidential power to make this work in light of what has and hasn't happened without much of any support from the Congress.
Agreed. Like you, I am an attorney. But whatever one thinks about the ACA, this ruling is correct. The law states that subsidies are available to people enrolled through an Exchange established by the State. Federal exchanges are not "established by the State."
Courts are required to apply the law as written. Some laws are badly drafted, so their meaning is subject to interpretation. Not this one. It is perfectly clear. That doesn't mean that the appeals court won't reverse this decision. But if they do, I'd be surprised if the Supremes didn't get involved, and reverse the appeals court. This is an extraordinarily clever and effective way of invalidating the ACA.
I think we both could agree that the revamping of the healthcare sector was necessary. Imperative, even.
But yes inpatient. Trying out a one-size-fits-all all law in one shot signals impatience. There are certainly political realities about this where if they had done minor changes they may not have been able to push through anything more.
But by doing minor changes people might have been able to see the added benefits of carefully crafted laws. This may have added further impetus for additional health care reform.
But beyond that impatience is apparent that they didn't address several significant flaws with the existing healthcare sector. Employer sponsored health insurance is but one example. It's not an unknown problem. That signals a rush to get through a major reworking of the healthcare sector instead of a smart reworking.
I guess minor changes might have worked. But what minor changes? And who will see the benefit? And the one thing that NO ONE but the crafters of this law have done is suggest anything that will expand access to health care for folks who aren't poor enough to have medicaid and can't afford it on their own. How long do they have to wait while we look for a perfect solution?
they don't have to wait, they just have to pay the fine.
All good points. But we've seen the crafting of this law and seeing the massive changes it has caused. The minor changes could have incorporated some sort of welfare additive with mandated coverage benefits and the destruction of the link between employment health insurance.
A counterpoint however is that this health care reform may have led to less impetus for further reform the next few years. Many people are skeptical about the long run implications of this law. Just like what the Fed is doing has long-run implications that we don't know, the same can be said about this health care law both good and bad.
I have always preferred local or state solutions to this problem. Coupled with top down mandates this might be a better future solution.
lawsuit to have been filed in the first place. So basically the letter of the law states that people who get insurance on the "state" exchanges will be eligible for subsidies - but a grievance was filed because they don't think people in states where they deferred the handling of their exchanges to the "federal" govt should be able to get the subsidies?
If this is upheld by an appellate court, who is this going to benefit? The rest of the law under Obamacare will still be intact and millions of people in those 34 states will be forced to pay more for private insurance - nobody wins.
depends on your feelings about federal subsidies I would guess
and the ability to simply wave a magic wand and make substantive changes to a law without sending it back through the legislature. If you're comfortable with the current occupant of the Oval Office doing so, ask if you'd be just as amenable to the next occupant doing the same thing.
kickerpa16 I am a big supporter of reform and the law
and you make very solid and fair points as you usually do. You are absolutely correct in that a law of this magnitude needs to be passed and that as the implementation begins, it should be constantly re-assessed/evaluated for changes and improvements. It's impossible to sit in the back halls of congress and accurately envision how a law of this magnitude will look once implementation begins. Unfortunately it may have been passed decades too late. In this political climate civil discourse and actual "legislating", which must include compromise is near impossible.
Listen in '81 Tip O'Neill and the Democratic House could easily have folded their arms and vowed to block every part of Reagan's agenda that they could. They didn't. They read the attitude of the country and did what they could do to work with Reagan on things, and hold firm to win a battle or 2 that they really wanted to win. I'm not saying I agreed with Reagan's policies or not. However when the country is struggling as it was then you need a govt. that is willing to move forward and work together on some level. This is simply not a part of the process any more. It's a shame because we are the ones that suffer.
Reagan wanted his tax policies and his military buildup, O'Neill wanted the bulk of his domestic/legislative prerogatives to remain unchanged or little changed. There is no comparable grand bargain to be made this time around.
All good points. But we've seen the crafting of this law and seeing the massive changes it has caused. The minor changes could have incorporated some sort of welfare additive with mandated coverage benefits and the destruction of the link between employment health insurance.
A counterpoint however is that this health care reform may have led to less impetus for further reform the next few years. Many people are skeptical about the long run implications of this law. Just like what the Fed is doing has long-run implications that we don't know, the same can be said about this health care law both good and bad.
I have always preferred local or state solutions to this problem. Coupled with top down mandates this might be a better future solution.
That's a fair point. Perhaps this holds together a fundamentally flawed system and puts off the real change we need, leading to a worse long term outcome.
I guess I look at it (like I look at everything) as an engineer. Get something in place, debug where necessary and refactor when appropriate. The odds that you could get the entire government to agree on one ideal approach is zero anyway.
Not really - the subsidies provided by the healthcare law
aren't like other federal subsidies where our income tax dollars directly or indirectly contribute to them. The funding of the insurance subsidies are self-contained within the law as it relates to insurance itself - the vast majority of people in the country aren't affected one way or another by the insurance discount someone else gets on the exchanges.
RE: kickerpa16 I am a big supporter of reform and the law
and you make very solid and fair points as you usually do. You are absolutely correct in that a law of this magnitude needs to be passed and that as the implementation begins, it should be constantly re-assessed/evaluated for changes and improvements. It's impossible to sit in the back halls of congress and accurately envision how a law of this magnitude will look once implementation begins. Unfortunately it may have been passed decades too late. In this political climate civil discourse and actual "legislating", which must include compromise is near impossible.
Listen in '81 Tip O'Neill and the Democratic House could easily have folded their arms and vowed to block every part of Reagan's agenda that they could. They didn't. They read the attitude of the country and did what they could do to work with Reagan on things, and hold firm to win a battle or 2 that they really wanted to win. I'm not saying I agreed with Reagan's policies or not. However when the country is struggling as it was then you need a govt. that is willing to move forward and work together on some level. This is simply not a part of the process any more. It's a shame because we are the ones that suffer.
Good post.
On a (hopefully) promising note, some of the lack of agreement between the parties is due to the cyclical nature of parties.
Over time, parties have folded as wings in that grouping fought for control and eventually splintered. The splinters grew larger and eventually started the process of compromise again.
I think we are seeing this splintering in process now and that, in a few decades, the grand bargains will again be a feature of the political landscape.
and the ability to simply wave a magic wand and make substantive changes to a law without sending it back through the legislature. If you're comfortable with the current occupant of the Oval Office doing so, ask if you'd be just as amenable to the next occupant doing the same thing.
Also agree. Presidents of both parties routinely use executive orders to try and get what they want, but Congress won't enact. "Signing statements" are another similar strategy presidents use to try and limit what part of a law they have to enforce. Neither are constitutional IMO. Both require a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
RE: On one side we have people mindlessly extolling
But this is an outcome of trying to pass a huge law that reworks a sector of the economy that is a substantial fraction of annual GDP. And that human laws aren't perfect and that human legislation this highly imperfect in most cases.
I think a comparison to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 might be enlightening. The process that led to the bill began more than 2 years before it was passed. Representatives and Senators from both parties had significant input into the legislation. And even them, a technical corrections
bill was needed to fix some minor glitches in the final bill. But compared to the ACA it was incredibly smooth process.
This was a rushed piece of legislation that was not properly vetted by either side. And this is the result.
because nobody wins this way. This cycle of whatever party is in charge even by the slimmest of margins slamming their agenda through always hurts at least 50% of the country.
All good points. But we've seen the crafting of this law and seeing the massive changes it has caused. The minor changes could have incorporated some sort of welfare additive with mandated coverage benefits and the destruction of the link between employment health insurance.
A counterpoint however is that this health care reform may have led to less impetus for further reform the next few years. Many people are skeptical about the long run implications of this law. Just like what the Fed is doing has long-run implications that we don't know, the same can be said about this health care law both good and bad.
I have always preferred local or state solutions to this problem. Coupled with top down mandates this might be a better future solution.
That's a fair point. Perhaps this holds together a fundamentally flawed system and puts off the real change we need, leading to a worse long term outcome.
I guess I look at it (like I look at everything) as an engineer. Get something in place, debug where necessary and refactor when appropriate. The odds that you could get the entire government to agree on one ideal approach is zero anyway.
The debugging analogy is a good one. But may I propose it one step further.
Politics is like stringing together a nuclear code for missiles. While bugs are inevitable, too many (or needing fixes to often because it was out together haphazardly) can lead to inadvertent nuclear war.
The unintended consequences of our actions can lead to decades of misery (hell, see stagflation and the Fed simply misinterpreting a data point). Change is necessary, but we've maintained the point where large scale planning (or attempts to do it) is futile and deadly.
because nobody wins this way. This cycle of whatever party is in charge even by the slimmest of margins slamming their agenda through always hurts at least 50% of the country.
Ha, I'd revise it to 90%.
Only those in power and a small fraction ever see good benefits from the changes recently.
RE: RE: On one side we have people mindlessly extolling
But this is an outcome of trying to pass a huge law that reworks a sector of the economy that is a substantial fraction of annual GDP. And that human laws aren't perfect and that human legislation this highly imperfect in most cases.
I think a comparison to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 might be enlightening. The process that led to the bill began more than 2 years before it was passed. Representatives and Senators from both parties had significant input into the legislation. And even them, a technical corrections
bill was needed to fix some minor glitches in the final bill. But compared to the ACA it was incredibly smooth process.
This was a rushed piece of legislation that was not properly vetted by either side. And this is the result.
Tax reform is a much smoother process and many of the longer term effects have been studied for decades.
there was room for compromise here. There always is.
Is there room for compromise? Sure. You would think economic crisis would be reason enough. But in the early 1980's there was a very obvious, overarching compromise to be made. Enact your tax reforms and build your defense budget but tread lightly on my domestic budget priorities, we'll finance the shortfall with debt. Here about the only thing anyone agrees upon - though not publicly of course - is the deficit spending.
"We, who champion the autonomy of states, are going to elect to forgo our own exchanges in favor of more Federal control. Then we're going to exploit one line of the law so that participants in the federal exchanges the we opted for can't benefit from them to their fullest effect."
It just all so perverse. You know one thing that 100% of these serial and obsessive objectors (be they in the media or the courtroom) have in common? They're all insured. It's nothing short of astounding the lengths to which these circles will go merely to deny Americans health insurance. I'm reminded of the scene in Titanic as the stuffy upper-class, safe on the life boats, watches from afar as the penurious flail in the water and drown. Except in this case they don't have watch.
I cannot for the life of me understand why they are still banned here. They really are some of the best, most informative discussions we have on the site. Is there anger/fighting now and then? sure. Has anyone seen the football/baskeball/baseball threads lately? They usually devolve into name calling/put-down wars that can last 30-40 comments long easy with plenty of obscenities thrown about.
In the case of Medicaid expansion, the option is there to directly expand coverage to millions more Americans. Governors and state legislatures have refused, thereby denying coverage to the people they represent. I get that they're poor/working poor people, but still...
You mean politicians don't always do what's best for the people who elected them? Shocking! :)
These are the two biggest issues with Health Care / ACA -
1. Health Insurance is a symptom, not the underlying problem. Insurance is a transfer of risk - the more risky you are, the higher the cost. If the population as a whole was less risky (i.e., healthier) then premiums would be lower and more people could afford it. We have a HEALTH problem in this country, not an insurance problem.
2. Tying health insurance to employment exaggerates every single healthcare issue in the country. Because it means that its no longer an individual risk/reward analysis.
This is the result of a law that was written politically and not practically. 71 times it's been changed from the law that Congress passed without Congress doing it. It's not even a law anymore, it's a decree.
anyway. If it's a decree, it's because one side has made it a mission to stop the law altogether. Unilateral changes are all the folks left to implement it can do.
But this is an outcome of trying to pass a huge law that reworks a sector of the economy that is a substantial fraction of annual GDP. And that human laws aren't perfect and that human legislation this highly imperfect in most cases.
So we see the logical outcome. It hints at the need for further reworking of a better health care law that addresses some of our significant deficiencies in the area. All too often people want a one time or one shot fix to the problem which isn't happening. This initially should've taken more time or more care to craft.
But people are too damn impatient and want to see a result now.
Here's to hoping we can find a workable solution for healthcare it will likely mean that people come both sides will be furious but it's going to be a pressing issue for the next few years.
But this is an outcome of trying to pass a huge law that reworks a sector of the economy that is a substantial fraction of annual GDP. And that human laws aren't perfect and that human legislation this highly imperfect in most cases.
So we see the logical outcome. It hints at the need for further reworking of a better health care law that addresses some of our significant deficiencies in the area. All too often people want a one time or one shot fix to the problem which isn't happening. This initially should've taken more time or more care to craft.
But people are too damn impatient and want to see a result now.
Here's to hoping we can find a workable solution for healthcare it will likely mean that people come both sides will be furious but it's going to be a pressing issue for the next few years.
[shrug]. Impatient? They've been ostensibly working on HC since the Clinton administration. I think the idea was to do something and then fix it. But, the act of doing something brought the government to a complete halt because the minority party decided to never let that happen again.
This is the kind of thing that could have been fixed in subsequent legislation, if legislation were something that was still possible.
As it is, it takes a pretty incredible interpretation of the law to support this legal argument
But yes inpatient. Trying out a one-size-fits-all all law in one shot signals impatience. There are certainly political realities about this where if they had done minor changes they may not have been able to push through anything more.
But by doing minor changes people might have been able to see the added benefits of carefully crafted laws. This may have added further impetus for additional health care reform.
But beyond that impatience is apparent that they didn't address several significant flaws with the existing healthcare sector. Employer sponsored health insurance is but one example. It's not an unknown problem. That signals a rush to get through a major reworking of the healthcare sector instead of a smart reworking.
Yup. It will go to full circuit which will overturn this decision. Just noise.
BREAKING: Obama administration says health care subsidies will keep flowing despite court decision.
But yes inpatient. Trying out a one-size-fits-all all law in one shot signals impatience. There are certainly political realities about this where if they had done minor changes they may not have been able to push through anything more.
But by doing minor changes people might have been able to see the added benefits of carefully crafted laws. This may have added further impetus for additional health care reform.
But beyond that impatience is apparent that they didn't address several significant flaws with the existing healthcare sector. Employer sponsored health insurance is but one example. It's not an unknown problem. That signals a rush to get through a major reworking of the healthcare sector instead of a smart reworking.
I guess minor changes might have worked. But what minor changes? And who will see the benefit? And the one thing that NO ONE but the crafters of this law have done is suggest anything that will expand access to health care for folks who aren't poor enough to have medicaid and can't afford it on their own. How long do they have to wait while we look for a perfect solution?
Agreed. Like you, I am an attorney. But whatever one thinks about the ACA, this ruling is correct. The law states that subsidies are available to people enrolled through an Exchange established by the State. Federal exchanges are not "established by the State."
Courts are required to apply the law as written. Some laws are badly drafted, so their meaning is subject to interpretation. Not this one. It is perfectly clear. That doesn't mean that the appeals court won't reverse this decision. But if they do, I'd be surprised if the Supremes didn't get involved, and reverse the appeals court. This is an extraordinarily clever and effective way of invalidating the ACA.
BREAKING: Obama administration says health care subsidies will keep flowing despite court decision.
Can they actually do that?
Quote:
I think we both could agree that the revamping of the healthcare sector was necessary. Imperative, even.
But yes inpatient. Trying out a one-size-fits-all all law in one shot signals impatience. There are certainly political realities about this where if they had done minor changes they may not have been able to push through anything more.
But by doing minor changes people might have been able to see the added benefits of carefully crafted laws. This may have added further impetus for additional health care reform.
But beyond that impatience is apparent that they didn't address several significant flaws with the existing healthcare sector. Employer sponsored health insurance is but one example. It's not an unknown problem. That signals a rush to get through a major reworking of the healthcare sector instead of a smart reworking.
I guess minor changes might have worked. But what minor changes? And who will see the benefit? And the one thing that NO ONE but the crafters of this law have done is suggest anything that will expand access to health care for folks who aren't poor enough to have medicaid and can't afford it on their own. How long do they have to wait while we look for a perfect solution?
they don't have to wait, they just have to pay the fine.
A counterpoint however is that this health care reform may have led to less impetus for further reform the next few years. Many people are skeptical about the long run implications of this law. Just like what the Fed is doing has long-run implications that we don't know, the same can be said about this health care law both good and bad.
I have always preferred local or state solutions to this problem. Coupled with top down mandates this might be a better future solution.
If this is upheld by an appellate court, who is this going to benefit? The rest of the law under Obamacare will still be intact and millions of people in those 34 states will be forced to pay more for private insurance - nobody wins.
Listen in '81 Tip O'Neill and the Democratic House could easily have folded their arms and vowed to block every part of Reagan's agenda that they could. They didn't. They read the attitude of the country and did what they could do to work with Reagan on things, and hold firm to win a battle or 2 that they really wanted to win. I'm not saying I agreed with Reagan's policies or not. However when the country is struggling as it was then you need a govt. that is willing to move forward and work together on some level. This is simply not a part of the process any more. It's a shame because we are the ones that suffer.
A counterpoint however is that this health care reform may have led to less impetus for further reform the next few years. Many people are skeptical about the long run implications of this law. Just like what the Fed is doing has long-run implications that we don't know, the same can be said about this health care law both good and bad.
I have always preferred local or state solutions to this problem. Coupled with top down mandates this might be a better future solution.
That's a fair point. Perhaps this holds together a fundamentally flawed system and puts off the real change we need, leading to a worse long term outcome.
I guess I look at it (like I look at everything) as an engineer. Get something in place, debug where necessary and refactor when appropriate. The odds that you could get the entire government to agree on one ideal approach is zero anyway.
Listen in '81 Tip O'Neill and the Democratic House could easily have folded their arms and vowed to block every part of Reagan's agenda that they could. They didn't. They read the attitude of the country and did what they could do to work with Reagan on things, and hold firm to win a battle or 2 that they really wanted to win. I'm not saying I agreed with Reagan's policies or not. However when the country is struggling as it was then you need a govt. that is willing to move forward and work together on some level. This is simply not a part of the process any more. It's a shame because we are the ones that suffer.
Good post.
On a (hopefully) promising note, some of the lack of agreement between the parties is due to the cyclical nature of parties.
Over time, parties have folded as wings in that grouping fought for control and eventually splintered. The splinters grew larger and eventually started the process of compromise again.
I think we are seeing this splintering in process now and that, in a few decades, the grand bargains will again be a feature of the political landscape.
Also agree. Presidents of both parties routinely use executive orders to try and get what they want, but Congress won't enact. "Signing statements" are another similar strategy presidents use to try and limit what part of a law they have to enforce. Neither are constitutional IMO. Both require a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that.
But this is an outcome of trying to pass a huge law that reworks a sector of the economy that is a substantial fraction of annual GDP. And that human laws aren't perfect and that human legislation this highly imperfect in most cases.
I think a comparison to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 might be enlightening. The process that led to the bill began more than 2 years before it was passed. Representatives and Senators from both parties had significant input into the legislation. And even them, a technical corrections
bill was needed to fix some minor glitches in the final bill. But compared to the ACA it was incredibly smooth process.
This was a rushed piece of legislation that was not properly vetted by either side. And this is the result.
Quote:
All good points. But we've seen the crafting of this law and seeing the massive changes it has caused. The minor changes could have incorporated some sort of welfare additive with mandated coverage benefits and the destruction of the link between employment health insurance.
A counterpoint however is that this health care reform may have led to less impetus for further reform the next few years. Many people are skeptical about the long run implications of this law. Just like what the Fed is doing has long-run implications that we don't know, the same can be said about this health care law both good and bad.
I have always preferred local or state solutions to this problem. Coupled with top down mandates this might be a better future solution.
That's a fair point. Perhaps this holds together a fundamentally flawed system and puts off the real change we need, leading to a worse long term outcome.
I guess I look at it (like I look at everything) as an engineer. Get something in place, debug where necessary and refactor when appropriate. The odds that you could get the entire government to agree on one ideal approach is zero anyway.
The debugging analogy is a good one. But may I propose it one step further.
Politics is like stringing together a nuclear code for missiles. While bugs are inevitable, too many (or needing fixes to often because it was out together haphazardly) can lead to inadvertent nuclear war.
The unintended consequences of our actions can lead to decades of misery (hell, see stagflation and the Fed simply misinterpreting a data point). Change is necessary, but we've maintained the point where large scale planning (or attempts to do it) is futile and deadly.
Always enjoy your posts.
Ha, I'd revise it to 90%.
Only those in power and a small fraction ever see good benefits from the changes recently.
Quote:
But this is an outcome of trying to pass a huge law that reworks a sector of the economy that is a substantial fraction of annual GDP. And that human laws aren't perfect and that human legislation this highly imperfect in most cases.
I think a comparison to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 might be enlightening. The process that led to the bill began more than 2 years before it was passed. Representatives and Senators from both parties had significant input into the legislation. And even them, a technical corrections
bill was needed to fix some minor glitches in the final bill. But compared to the ACA it was incredibly smooth process.
This was a rushed piece of legislation that was not properly vetted by either side. And this is the result.
Tax reform is a much smoother process and many of the longer term effects have been studied for decades.
That and the fact that they affect different actors in different ways, making comparisons problematic.
Is there room for compromise? Sure. You would think economic crisis would be reason enough. But in the early 1980's there was a very obvious, overarching compromise to be made. Enact your tax reforms and build your defense budget but tread lightly on my domestic budget priorities, we'll finance the shortfall with debt. Here about the only thing anyone agrees upon - though not publicly of course - is the deficit spending.
It just all so perverse. You know one thing that 100% of these serial and obsessive objectors (be they in the media or the courtroom) have in common? They're all insured. It's nothing short of astounding the lengths to which these circles will go merely to deny Americans health insurance. I'm reminded of the scene in Titanic as the stuffy upper-class, safe on the life boats, watches from afar as the penurious flail in the water and drown. Except in this case they don't have watch.
The ACA attempts (poorly) to help the later. You're complaining about the former, which doesn't exist anyway.
IMO this bill was much too complex, especially for the first step.
It's wonderfully complex, but not so complex we have the legislation we currently have (in terms of length).
These are the two biggest issues with Health Care / ACA -
1. Health Insurance is a symptom, not the underlying problem. Insurance is a transfer of risk - the more risky you are, the higher the cost. If the population as a whole was less risky (i.e., healthier) then premiums would be lower and more people could afford it. We have a HEALTH problem in this country, not an insurance problem.
2. Tying health insurance to employment exaggerates every single healthcare issue in the country. Because it means that its no longer an individual risk/reward analysis.
What employer mandate?
This is the result of a law that was written politically and not practically. 71 times it's been changed from the law that Congress passed without Congress doing it. It's not even a law anymore, it's a decree.
Quote:
Either to the full circuit court or the USSC. This is just one step on the way.
Yup. It will go to full circuit which will overturn this decision. Just noise.
And then the SCOTUS.