Same crap, different name.
Splendid idea! We shall simply redistribute wealth so that all citizens can afford privately funded health care! Thanks, Comrade!
Separate but equal education for the poor huh? Actually nevermind, you never said anything about equal. So just separate.
That seems like a good idea to you? :dubious:
“Separate, but equal food for the poor huh? Actually, nevermind, you never said anything about equal. So just separate.”
“Separate, but equal housing for the poor huh? Actually, nevermind, you never said anything about equal. So just separate.”
“Separate, but equal transportation for the poor huh? Actually, nevermind, you never said anything about equal. So just separate.”
“Separate, but equal clothing for the poor huh? Actually, nevermind, you never said anything about equal. So just separate.”
etc. etc. etc.
What point do you think you’re making with that?
Bricker:
What do you think of RP’s analysis in the original thread on this subject?
What point do you think you were making with your post?
Well, I figure the U.S. might go single-payer eventually - Vermont is dabbling with the idea - but baby steps. As it is, “government health insurance” existed in the U.S. well before the ACA, significant but limited in scope.
So in this circumstance, the “means” are so onerous to you that the ends don’t matter?
One that’s too difficult for you to comprehend apparently. I guess I need to bring it down a few levels.
Think about the history of education in this country. Specifically with regard to civil rights and segregation. Think about the idea of taking all of the kids from a certain group and funneling them all to the same schools, separate from everyone else, but now you are saying we should do this to the poor people rather than to the black people as it was back then. So its not a racist idea necessarily, but definitely classist.
I think his analysis is flawed. The only serious argument is not that the verb “established” is undefined. It’s that the language relating to tax credits specifically allows them only when an exchange is established by the State, and the statute further specifically defines “State” as “any one of the fifty United States and the District of Columbia.” (Another point that no one in the thread bothered to mention, despite plaintive cries that “State” could mean the federal government.)
He ultimately says that the courts should look to the overall purpose and forget the words.
But the words show the purpose. Congress intended to incentivize the state exchanges. They expected that states would all have exchanges. That didn’t happen. The courts should not re-write the statute to fix a mistake of that nature.
Terr, perhaps I’m an idiot who can’t get along with anyone.
But stop helping.
I realize you are a putative ally on this point, and conventional wisdom would suggest I treat you as an ally and support your points.
But I wish you weren’t helping. I don’t have the energy to pick apart your posts as well as those from the other side.
Is that the conclusion you expect the majority on the SCOTUS to come to?
Some of the language does suggest that. Other parts of the statute suggest otherwise. I suggest you read the rest of the thread you quoted if you haven’t already, because I don’t think you’ve grappled with the strongest arguments in this post.
No, that’s incorrect. He analyzed it, as I have, as an issue of conflicting meanings of different parts of the statute.
That’s ironic. You contend that the words show the purpose, but you’ll ascribe an intent to Congress about incentives that is not in the words, when the actual purpose–helping poorer people buy healthcare–is all over the statute.
So - why not apply “equal” to all those other things I mentioned? Food, housing, transportation, clothing, etc etc etc? Don’t you those things are important? Should all those be “equalized” too?
Who says I am here to help you?
I object to this type of post.
What tells you that Terr is trying to help you? I think he’s trying to help Terr.
WADR it seems a bit presumptuous to declare youself the standard-bearer of your “side” and everyone else on that “side” as rank-and-file under your command.
Correct.
Withdrawn.
I apologize, Terr.
My god you’re dense. I was using the ‘separate but equal’ phrase to call back to the last time people had this idea for education. I wasn’t arguing that everything should or could be equal. I was mocking those that used that phrase in the past, and illustrating how your idea was along that same path.
Why? Why do you think education is more important that nutrition, housing or transportation? Why do you think education should be “equalized” but not the other necessities?
I don’t think that. Jesus man, you should take a break. Get some air, do some thinking. There’s a lot going over your head right now.
Again, I used the phrase ‘separate but equal’ specifically because your plan for education is very reminiscent of the plan of segregationists in the civil rights era. They claimed separate education was fine as long as it was equal. That was their phrase. I used it purposely to show you the flaw in your plan because it was essentially the same except you are advocating it for poor people rather than black people.
I wasn’t using the phrase literally as my own argument, I was using it to ridicule your argument.
Do you get it now?