I agree with the gist of that tidbit of public choice theory. It’s part of the nature of democracy, and it should indeed make us wary of large complicated bills.
We debated that issue ad nauseum on this board. Suffice to say I disagree.
It’s a myth that hallucinogens damage your long-term reasoning ability. Happy to help bust that myth for you too.
Anything else I can help you with?
(I’m not going to pretend that you think that David Gregory cite supports your original claim. C’mon.)
Wait, Bricker has humanity? I mean, he’s not quite the grade-A colonoscopy that Terr is, or the grade-A lobotomy victim that Clothy is, but he’s, as far as I can see, by far the most robotic poster on the forum. Hell, I’ve seen bots with more humanity than that (RIP Thomasstuart, Kher Keep Klub 2010-2011).
Maybe because virtually every single part of this is a fucking lie? Come on, don’t sell us for dumb. The law wasn’t rushed. It was debated for eons, then passed in literally the only window where it could have been passed (because, need I reiterate, democrats needed a 60-vote majority which was first not present because of an absolutely asinine, frivolous voter fraud lawsuit, then not present because someone died - oh, and they shouldn’t have needed that anyways). It’s an extremely complex law, and in any reasonable era of congress, such a flaw would be fixed via standard legislative pathways. But we’re not in a reasonable era of congress, we’re at the point where democrats could pass a law recommending breathing as a nice thing, and half the house of representatives would hold their breath in protest until they passed out.
These are separate issues. 1. Whether people knew about that effect of the law. 2. Whether they should have known about that effect.
The context of that thread was about whether Obama misled the public, and your argument was along those lines - that it should have been obvious that he didn’t mean you could literally keep the same policy because the law was pretty clear about it.
But it’s also pretty clear that as a practical matter it wasn’t actually obvious, because otherwise there would not have been the level of outrage that erupted - people would have been expecting it for years.
Unless you’re saying the people were surprised but that congresspeople knew and then faked being surprised. Not impossible, but I doubt it. I think they just didn’t consider the implications of what they were doing.
Good distinction.
But I absolutely think Congresspeople were feigning surprise to try to get on top of the public outrage. Or at least a lot of them were. I’m not sure if that makes me too cynical or not cynical enough.
I’m more willing to conclude that most of them were smart enough to get through school, but went into politics because they couldn’t succeed in the private sector. Which makes most of them not too bright.
What a fucking glorious day for you! Thanks to a typo, millions of people will lose their insurance and thousands will die.
It’s not that glorious a day, since it’s not the end of the road. I hope in the end ACA will die the death it so richly deserves and millions more of US citizens will not get hooked on government handouts.
Legal Question: Are all the subsidies for states with Federal-run exchanges gone as of now? Or do they remain in place pending an appeal?
What you meant to say is “I hope in the end that the uninsured will die the deaths they so richly deserve”. What a sad person to rejoice at the potential deaths of thousands.
Don’t get too excited Terr. From this link:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/dc-circuit-halbig-obamacare-subsidies
"The Obama administration is expected to seek a re-vote by the full active bench – an en banc ruling – which could potentially reverse the result. An en banc vote would be cast by the three judges who heard the case as well as 10 other judges on the active bench. Such a vote may be friendlier to Obamacare as it would feature 8 Democratic appointees and 5 Republican appointees. Four of the judges on the court were appointed by President Barack Obama, three of them after Senate Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for most nominations in November to overcome Republican obstruction.
“The Department of Justice can, and will, seek en banc review by the full D.C. Circuit. Generally, this involves new briefing before a final decision,” an Obama administration official told TPM after the ruling. “While this further review is ongoing, the premium tax credits will continue, unchanged.”"
Nothing changes for now, and the next time all of the DC Circuit judges get to vote not just this 2-1 Republican version.
Hey Terr, enjoying the thought of millions of people suddenly being unable to afford healthcare?
Anything that prevents people getting hooked on government handouts is good. This decision doesn’t do that - yet. Hopefully Bricker will win the bet against me.
We have a thing in civilized countries called “rule of law”. We don’t just pass gibberish and then just do whatever feels right to implement it. If this was a legal concept, we could have just entitled the bill “Affordable Care Act” and let monkeys type 2000 pages, and expect courts to interpret it in any light that gives people affordable care.
But since we do live in a nation of law, those laws have to be written, and the writing means something, and when people pass and sign laws without reading them, this kind of thing can be expected to happen. The right lesson to draw from this, is “read the damn bill”. You say that staffers read it and summarize it and yada yada, but if that was true, someone would have raised a red flag.
Also, another legal question: One of the issues the court had to deal with was “standing”, i.e. whether the plaintiffs had standing to raise the issue. Is this reversible?
Meaning suppose a higher court decided that the plaintiffs did not have standing, does the initial ruling disappear? Or is the rule that once they issued a ruling, that ruling stands until it is itself overturned?
As a practical matter, the question here is: could a higher cour overturn the ruling by overruling the standing aspect of the ruling with without overturning the core issue itself?
Nobody gives a flying fuck about Bricker’s retarded bets.
Dad gummit
Chill. No need to get hysterical.
You might be amazed to learn that the world does not rotate about Bricker.