I admire the tenacity of republicans

[adaher]

I wouldn’t worry. The Supreme Court was too timid to overthrow the mandate, it’s not going to basically kill the law in this case either.

I think what will actually happen is a shot across the bow of future ambitious legislators to be less careless. Because I think a lesser bill would be interpreted literally under these circumstances. If this was a campaign finance bill or a tax bill or a business regulation bill, Congress would have to sleep in the bed they made. Since the health insurance of millions are at stake, the court will probably be cautious in this case. Although giving legislators a scare would be most constructive.

[Bricker]

@BobLibDem

Nobody gives a flying fuck about Bricker’s retarded bets.

Does anyone give a more traditional fuck?

I’m pretty sure Terr does.

And of course you don’t, because in your little liberal heart, you know you’re wrong. And you can’t stand the idea of losing and memorializing the wrongness of you.

[elucidator]

If I shared the soulless cynicism of a Leninist, I would cheer this result, and gleefully rub my hands in anticipation. The more bitter the oppression, the sooner the revolution. The more the Republicans reveal their disdain for the people they pretend to serve, the sooner they are hustled off into irrelevance.

But I am not a cynic, and not a Leninist, I am a humanist, and the human cost weighs heavily. If this stands, people will suffer sickness longer, be less healthy, and some will die. Our people,* our* neighbors, our friends and our children.

And if they are not our people, who’s people are they?

[adaher]

It would also be nice if liberals would stop calling these lawsuits “crazy”. The ACA individual mandate challenge proved to be anything but crazy although it ultimately failed. Crazy cases get laughed out of court. Legitimate cases do not. This case is legitimate. Democrats screwed up and were actually pretty insoucient about their screwup. Millions don’t deserve to lose their health insurance, but Democrats sure deserve some comeuppance for their arrogance.

[Bone]

**Bricker **was correct in his prediction of the outcome at the circuit level. We’ll have to wait and see about the en banc and inevitable SCOTUS case. My guess is he will be wrong there and this will ultimately be overturned.

It’s foolish to equate being opposed to a bad law with wanting affected people to die.

[ElvisL1ves]

Then you need to be clear about why you think it’s a bad law, despite it saving lives.

So whaddaya got? That it’s better to die than to take “government handouts”? That won’t do it. What else?

[Bricker]

@BobLibDem

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 a typo.

A typo is a mistaken keystroke.

According to BobLibDem, this is a “typo:”

the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

And here’s another typo:

a State requires a qualified health plan under section 1311(d)(3)(B) of such Act to cover benefits in addition to the essential health benefits required to be provided by the plan

Look! Another “typo:”

as of the first day of such month the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent of the taxpayer is covered by a qualified health plan described in subsection (b)(2)(A) that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The poor Democrats. All they needed was a good typist.

[Bone]

@ElvisL1ves

Then you need to be clear about why you think it’s a bad law, despite it saving lives.

So whaddaya got? That it’s better to die than to take “government handouts”? That won’t do it. What else?

Are you disputing the statement that it’s foolish to equate being opposed to a bad law with wanting affected people to die?

I predict you will not answer this question in a responsive way. An answer in the affirmative or negative would contradict my prediction.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

If I shared the soulless cynicism of a Leninist, I would cheer this result, and gleefully rub my hands in anticipation. The more bitter the oppression, the sooner the revolution. The more the Republicans reveal their disdain for the people they pretend to serve, the sooner they are hustled off into irrelevance.

But I am not a cynic, and not a Leninist, I am a humanist, and the human cost weighs heavily. If this stands, people will suffer sickness longer, be less healthy, and some will die. Our people,* our* neighbors, our friends and our children.

And if they are not our people, who’s people are they?

As someone hinted above, there’s a good reason we didn’t pass a law that was ten words long: “The federal government and the states will provide free healthcare,” and let the courts “make it right.”

The law was poorly conceived and poorly drafted. It sucked. Now that its suckitude has been clearly highlighted, your first instinct is to blame those that exposed the suckitude.

Didn’t I see you in the crowd kicking the shit out of the little kid who yelled that the Emperor had no clothes?

[Bricker]

@Bone

**Bricker **was correct in his prediction of the outcome at the circuit level. We’ll have to wait and see about the en banc and inevitable SCOTUS case. My guess is he will be wrong there and this will ultimately be overturned.

It’s foolish to equate being opposed to a bad law with wanting affected people to die.

Would anyone be interested in my further predictions concerning en banc and SCOTUS review?

[Airbeck]

@Bone

It’s foolish to equate being opposed to a bad law with wanting affected people to die.

Not if that’s the actual real world result of what you are cheering for. How will it look to those 4 million people to see your side out dancing in the streets celebrating their suffering?

I’m not saying that anyone rooting for this necessarily wants these people to suffer, but it is sure going to look like that to many many people. Its very bad politics to be cheering so exuberantly for this IMO.

[BobLibDem]

According to this impartial source, it is:

The two Republicans’ decision rests on a glorified typo in the Affordable Care Act itself. Obamacare gives states a choice. They can either run their own health insurance exchange where their residents may buy health insurance, and receive subsidies to help them pay for that insurance if they qualify, or they can allow the federal government to run that exchange for them. Yet the plaintiffs’ in this case uncovered a drafting error in the statute where it appears to limit the subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” Randolph and Griffith’s opinion concludes that this drafting error is the only thing that matters. In their words, “a federal Exchange is not an ‘Exchange established by the State,’” and that’s it. The upshot of this opinion is that 6.5 million Americans will lose their ability to afford health insurance, according to one estimate.

The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has long recognized that a law’s clear purpose should not be defeated due to an error in proofreading. As the Court explained in 2007, “a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation” as the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” It is indeed true that a single phrase of the Affordable Care Act, if read in isolation, suggests that Congress intended only state-run exchanges — as opposed to federal exchanges — to offer subsidies, but this provision is contradicted by numerous other provisions of the law.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Does anyone give a more traditional fuck?

I’m pretty sure Terr does.

And of course you don’t, because in your little liberal heart, you know you’re wrong. And you can’t stand the idea of losing and memorializing the wrongness of you.

Well, there’s more than one variety of “wrong”, isn’t there? There is the “wrong” based on a stingy pedantry, of precise semantic distinctions tortured to admit the desired “truth”.

And then there is the wrong of inflicting sickness and death on the innocent.

We will all be wrong, at one time or another. Comes with the navel. And if I must choose between being wrong and generous and being wrong with the cramped and constipated perspective you offer us here…well, fuck that shit!

Perhaps we went to different Sunday Schools, the Jesus I was taught to revere isn’t a prick.

[Terr]

@Bricker

Would anyone be interested in my further predictions concerning en banc and SCOTUS review?

Sure. What I expect is en banc will decide against the plaintiffs. Further, in the 3 (I think) other similar cases pending, at least one will be decided for the plaintiffs. Thus, SCOTUS will really have no choice but take this up. I expect Roberts to twist himself in a pretzel to uphold IRS’s discretion with resulting 5-4 decision against the plaintiffs. I hope I am wrong. You probably think Roberts will find some sense of shame and make the right decision.

[Wesley_Clark]

I’ll give credit to Bricker for this one. I don’t understand the law and thought this was just semantics.

Reading up on it my impression now is the law will continue as is until the DC circuit court of appeals hears it. If they vote with the administration does that signal the end of this particular lawsuit or do the plaintiffs take it to the Supreme Court?

For those saying this is a horrible law, what is the alternative? Our system doesn’t work for large numbers of people.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bone

Are you disputing the statement that it’s foolish to equate being opposed to a bad law with wanting affected people to die?

No, putz. I’m disputing your assertion that it’s a bad law, despite it saving lives. An assertion which you are refusing (because unable?) to support.

I predict you will not answer this question in a responsive way. An answer in the affirmative or negative would contradict my prediction.

Another thing you’re wrong about.

Now try to act like a grownup. You’ve seen it done, you can try.

[Bricker]

@Wesley_Clark

I’ll give credit to Bricker for this one. I don’t understand the law and thought this was just semantics.

Reading up on it my impression now is the law will continue as is until the DC circuit court of appeals hears it. If they vote with the administration does that signal the end of this particular lawsuit or do the plaintiffs take it to the Supreme Court?

For those saying this is a horrible law, what is the alternative? Our system doesn’t work for large numbers of people.

This was a decision of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals – or more specifically, a panel of that court.

Normally, federal circuit courts designate a panel of three judges to hear and decide appeals. A losing party may request that the entire DC Circuit – I think numbering thirteen judges – rehear the panel’s opinion by sitting “en banc.” If the circuit court does so, the panel opinion is vacated and replaced with the full court’s opinion.

A losing party may also choose to directly ask the US Supreme Court to review the case without ever trying the en banc review.

If the government chooses to appeal to the en banc Circuit Court and wins there, the plaintiffs may ask the US Supreme Court to hear the case.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Wesley_Clark

If they vote with the administration does that signal the end of this particular lawsuit or do the plaintiffs take it to the Supreme Court?

I don’t think that’s in doubt. The purpose of the suit, and the motivation of the plaintiffs, is to oppose Obamacare and Obama himself in any way and to any extent possible.

[Bricker]

@Terr

Sure. What I expect is en banc will decide against the plaintiffs. Further, in the 3 (I think) other similar cases pending, at least one will be decided for the plaintiffs. Thus, SCOTUS will really have no choice but take this up. I expect Roberts to twist himself in a pretzel to uphold IRS’s discretion with resulting 5-4 decision against the plaintiffs. I hope I am wrong. You probably think Roberts will find some sense of shame and make the right decision.

I disagree, which is of course why I offered the bet.

I predict the government will ask for en banc review. I give them a 65% chance of winning at en banc. I see a virtually certain four votes for cert from the Supremes, regardless of a circuit split.

And I see a 5-4 decision along the lines of this one: the ACA unambiguously restricts the section 36B subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges “established by the State,” with the word ‘State’ clearly defined as one of the fifty United States and the District of Columbia, and so the IRS regulation is vacated. The four justices that like to write their own laws will dissent; the five that believe their job is to read the laws Congress wrote and apply them as written will be in the majority.

[Astral_Rejection]

I’ve always wondered about this ideological opposition to “handouts,” and I’ve even debated adaher in previous threads without gaining much clarity.

A hastily-constructed example: Let’s say I visit a state other than my own, and am robbed. I visit a police station, or perhaps even dial 911, and officers assist me and add it to their caseload. In this example, I’m paying them literally nothing. This would be a “handout,” right? The people of that state are being forced to pay for my police service, even though I haven’t “earned” that help in any meaningful sense and won’t help pay for it in any way.

In my opinion, I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man, and I understand that I am incredibly lucky to be in good health. I understand that others, not through laziness or moral failing but through bad circumstances, are not as lucky as me. I make around $45,000 a year, so I’m by no means wealthy, but I would gladly bear an increase in taxes to help others.

My general point, and in keeping with the original point of this thread, is to say that I find the national discourse on this subject intensely disheartening. Republicans opposing this bill have not offered a meaningful way for Americans to assist those in need. Instead, they’ve offered only obstruction. To Bricker, adaher, and Terr, this is why people believe your side “revels” in people dying. That’s one possible implicit message given by refusing to address the issue.

When Democrats are saying “let’s do this, this, and this,” and Republicans are saying “no, no, and no,” that’s the impression given. One side appears to want to help, and there’s a world of debate about how well each suggestion might work. Unfortunately, that seems to be the debate Republicans refuse to have, instead opting for a flat refusal. The ACA has passed, and Republicans have been hyper-focused on repealing it. Or repealing parts of it. Or delaying it. Or sueing over it. Or removing parts of it. Or repealing it again. So far, I have yet to see any meaningful attempts to IMPROVE IT, or offer a viable Republican alternative. Again, for a person who believes like myself, we have a moral obligation to assist others, and “let them suffer until they go to the emergency room” is not how I want my taxpayer dollars spent.

So, it’s incredibly unfair to ascribe to Bricker, Terr, or adaher a specific wish to watch people die. Similarly, however, I hope you three can see WHY your side gives that impression, and maybe work to better the discourse.

Side-note: come on, guys on my side. It’s never alright to compare the opposition to Nazis. It’s never going to be correct.