# I admire the tenacity of republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/321 "2014-07-22T16:38:36Z")
> [@Astral\_Rejection](#): > > Would you then be opposed with a single-payer system, where the government pays for all healthcare? That would clearly and unequivocally be a service under your definition, as nobody is ever handed money or subsidies. Yes, I would be very much opposed to that, but not because it would be a handout - it wouldn’t be. I’d be opposed to it because I think the government is not a big daddy and is not supposed to clothe you, house you, feed you, or heal you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/322 "2014-07-22T16:38:47Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Doesn’t matter. The intent is unmistakeable. I agree that the intent is unmistakable: Congress wanted every State to establish an exchange, so it granted tax credits to insurance purchased through the state exchanges, just like Congress wanting to incentivize home ownership and granting tax deductions to mortgage interest. Congress did not intend for the federal exchanges to have this credit until after the bill passed, and only fourteen states set up exchanges. Then they started to realize that the federal exchange solution was going to be necessary on a wide basis. So, yup. “Unmistakable.” ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/323 "2014-07-22T16:39:35Z")
**Terr** , are you ever going to answer my question about what your suggestion is to provide these poor people health care services if it isn’t ‘handouts’? Do you want to go back to when everyone that couldn’t afford insurance just shows up at the ER and we pay anyway? Or do you want to get rid of that as well and just not allow poor people healthcare services at all? All you do is rail against handouts, and let us know how much you oppose this solution, but what do you actually stand for? What is your suggestion? Please tell us what it is that you actually want, not just what you don’t want. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/324 "2014-07-22T16:40:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Yes, I would be very much opposed to that, but not because it would be a handout - it wouldn’t be. I’d be opposed to it because I think the government is not a big daddy and is not supposed to clothe you, house you, feed you, or heal you. If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/325 "2014-07-22T16:44:23Z")
Hey Terr, are you going to partake of that eeeeevil government-subsidized Medicare when you turn 65? Or will you stick to your principles and pay your full market rate yourself? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/326 "2014-07-22T16:49:05Z")
Well gosh, that would be a handout right? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/327 "2014-07-22T16:50:13Z")
And he’s going to start refusing his Social Security payments as soon as they add up to his lifetime contributions, too. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/328 "2014-07-22T16:51:59Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > **Terr** , are you ever going to answer my question about what your suggestion is to provide these poor people health care services if it isn’t ‘handouts’? I am not a lawmaker, and have no influence whatsoever on how this is done, so anything I say doesn’t matter. But - if you insist - what I would do is 1. Outlaw employer-provided health insurance. 2. Allow tax write off of all medical expenses. 3. Outlaw comprehensive medical insurance. Allow catastrophic medical insurance only. 4. Give tax write-offs to medical professionals for pro-bono work. 5. Outlaw the practice of pharmaceutical companies where they use sky-high US prices to subsidize low prices for foreign sales. With these changes, I would expect people to start shopping around for medical services and we would see the costs drop drastically. And the cost of drugs would go down. The situation today is absurd. Nobody knows or cares how much they are paying to doctors. If we had car insurance that covered oil changes, I guarantee you the oil changes would cost $1000 a pop. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/329 "2014-07-22T16:54:23Z")
The [4th circuit of appeals](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926757/separate-circuit-court-rules-in-favor-of-obamacare-subsidies/in/5690430) unanimously upheld the ACA federal subsidies, less than 2 hours after the DC court. This is pretty confusing. So one court rules 2-1 “no subsidies”. The same day, another court rules 3-0 “subsidies are fine”. Who wins? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/330 "2014-07-22T16:59:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I agree that the intent is unmistakable: Congress wanted every State to establish an exchange, so it granted tax credits to insurance purchased through the state exchanges, just like Congress wanting to incentivize home ownership and granting tax deductions to mortgage interest. > > Congress did not intend for the federal exchanges to have this credit until after the bill passed, and only fourteen states set up exchanges. Then they started to realize that the federal exchange solution was going to be necessary on a wide basis. > > So, yup. “Unmistakable.” You misspelled “sabotage” the history of the law was twisted and the Republican judges jumped to that twist it is bound to be repealed as other judges already told other or similar cases to take a hike. In this case you also ignore that the Republicans did indeed move the goal post and indeed you are telling us that now the changed condition is valid, and the intent of the law. Sorry, but in a fair world any ref that proposes that would be removed, but in the real world he would be eventually be ignored. And I see that **Terr** is also showing that one has to follow that old bit about “Never blame on malice what can be explained by incompetence.” He remains indeed an incompetent at this business of being human. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/331 "2014-07-22T17:02:15Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The [4th circuit of appeals](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926757/separate-circuit-court-rules-in-favor-of-obamacare-subsidies/in/5690430) unanimously upheld the ACA federal subsidies, less than 2 hours after the DC court. > > This is pretty confusing. So one court rules 2-1 “no subsidies”. The same day, another court rules 3-0 “subsidies are fine”. > > Who wins? Usually it means that this will get appealed, as noticed it is very unlikely that the ones in favor of twisting a law will find such a friendly environment as the DC court. The case you refer too is like the third one in favor of the intention of the law, vs one that undermines it based on a technicality. It is still an uphill battle for the law twisters and incompetent humans. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/332 "2014-07-22T17:03:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. And I even offered the participants in the thread a link to that oral argument, in the interests of full disclosure. I hadn’t seen your original bet. I see now that you did disclose it. Good on you. > [@Bricker](#): > > I agree it’s not certain, but I like the even odds bet just fine. I wouldn’t risk much money on the disparity between my confidence in the outcome and even odds, but I’m happy to make an honor wager (along [these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15204938&postcount=28)lines). (I assume if the Supreme Court takes cert on one of the other cases and thereby overturns the en banc panel that you would win. Also assuming that if the plaintiffs are found to lack standing–such as by a crafty John Roberts trying to save face for the Court–then I win.) > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is pretty confusing. So one court rules 2-1 “no subsidies”. The same day, another court rules 3-0 “subsidies are fine”. > > Who wins? The D.C. Circuit panel decision will likely be stayed pending _en banc_ review. If the D.C. Circuit overturns the panel _en banc_, then the Supreme Court may or may not take certiorari. If they don’t then cert is virtually guaranteed, though not technically required. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/333 "2014-07-22T17:06:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The [4th circuit of appeals](http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5926757/separate-circuit-court-rules-in-favor-of-obamacare-subsidies/in/5690430) unanimously upheld the ACA federal subsidies, less than 2 hours after the DC court. > > This is pretty confusing. So one court rules 2-1 “no subsidies”. The same day, another court rules 3-0 “subsidies are fine”. > > Who wins? Typically, the decisions are stayed. If neither is appealed, each becomes binding law for the geographical area they cover…which would create a bizarre patchwork of the country in which subsidies are legal some places and not legal elsewhere. Which is why this is destined to go to SCOTUS, regardless of the intermediate _en banc_ review possibilities. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/334 "2014-07-22T17:09:18Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > …The D.C. Circuit panel decision will likely be stayed pending _en banc_ review. If the D.C. Circuit overturns the panel _en banc_, then the Supreme Court may or may not take certiorari. If they don’t then cert is virtually guaranteed, though not technically required. I am inclined to furrow my brow, stroke my chin, and nod thoughtfully as if I had the slightest idea what you were talking about. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/335 "2014-07-22T17:09:30Z")
So, the government may eventually win this case, but we shouldn’t banc on it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/336 "2014-07-22T17:10:19Z")
Indictment pending. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/337 "2014-07-22T17:12:47Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I hadn’t seen your original bet. I see now that you did disclose it. Good on you. > > I wouldn’t risk much money on the disparity between my confidence in the outcome and even odds, but I’m happy to make an honor wager (along [these](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15204938&postcount=28)lines). Sure. Generic bragging rights as stakes. Done. > [@](#): > > (I assume if the Supreme Court takes cert on one of the other cases and thereby overturns the en banc panel that you would win. Also assuming that if the plaintiffs are found to lack standing–such as by a crafty John Roberts trying to save face for the Court–then I win.) Yup. I win if: - There is no en banc review and SCOTUS does not grant cert - There is an en banc review and – Halbig loses, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig wins there – Halbig wins and SCOTUS doesn’t grant cert – Halbig wins, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig wins there You win if: - There is no en banc review, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig loses there - There is an en banc review and – Halbig loses, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig loses there – Halbig loses and SCOTUS doesn’t grant cert – Halbig wins, SCOTUS grants cert, and Halbig loses there If Congress moots the issue by passing into law a modification that allows federal exchange purchases to get subsidized, the bet is a push. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/338 "2014-07-22T17:14:28Z")
Wow, reading **Bricker** post about betting is like watching a child play his very, very favorite new toy. There’s just so much joy and pleasure in it! It’s almost contagious, **Bricker** … who’s a cute little gambling addict? You are! Yes you are! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/339 "2014-07-22T17:16:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I am inclined to furrow my brow, stroke my chin, and nod thoughtfully as if I had the slightest idea what you were talking about. French and Latin in just 2 sentences. Very sexy! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 22, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/340 "2014-07-22T17:19:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Wow, reading **Bricker** post about betting is like watching a child play his very, very favorite new toy. There’s just so much joy and pleasure in it! It’s almost contagious, **Bricker** … who’s a cute little gambling addict? You are! Yes you are! I’m not, though. What I am is a conservative on a board dominated by liberals. And this domination expresses itself in many ways – relevant to the current topic, it expresses itself by almost never penalizing a wrong prediction made in service of a liberal cause. And the ability to bet forces the liberal community to confront actual consequences for losing. (When they don’t lose and then dodge the consequences, that is). I’m not a gambling addict. I’m addicted to being RIGHT, and having that accuracy recognized, and the inaccuracy that passes for liberal commentary here also recognized. GIGOBuster confidently asserted that this was meritless. This decision isn’t final, and I noted as much when I first proposed a wager. But I wonder if he regrets, at least a little, his confident assertions that this lawsuit had no merit, now that the DC Circuit says it does. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=18)