# I pit all conservatives who have bought into the Halbig/King ACA trutherism nonsense **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 19, 2014, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625 "2014-12-19T00:04:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/341 "2015-01-16T16:42:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But it’s not just their earnings. Most of it is from the earnings of other people. > > And that’s the crux of the issue for insurance. Each individual person is maximizing his or her own benefit by utilizing health care based on their own out-of-pocket costs. But since the majority is picked up by other people - either their employer, or the employee contributions of their fellow employees - they are passing most of the cost on to other people. And if a big percentage of people do the same thing for the same rationale, the overall added costs are significant. > > Essentially each person acting on his own interests in his own situation results in a situation where overall everyone is worse off. (There is probably some sort of game theory economic principle discussing this more formally, but the general idea is pretty straightforward.) > > It such situations it’s appropriate for the government to attempt to structure the rules so as to make the cost-benefit equation for individuals more closely mirror that of society as a whole. Unless, of course, the society as a whole is divided between those who have too much and those who have not enough. All nations are, to one degree or another, a collective endeavor. I am an American, I am part of America and Americans are part of me. All around the world, this shit works. Nations with nowhere near our resources and capacity care for their citizens better than we do. We should be embarrassed. The ACA is not a marvel of the ages, it is working simply because the god-awful mess we had is a god-awful mess, and the ACA is merely a mess. Much tinkering will be required, mostly because so much of the laws were crafted by men determined to see it fail. But the jury is in, it can be done, it is being done. As far as the correct purpose of government, the purpose of government by, of and for the people is whatever we say it is. \* Tres duh, mais non\*?, to paraphrase Rousseau. And if these are not our people, well, who’s people are they? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/342 "2015-01-16T16:49:42Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > The costs and benefits of various proposed programs (I hesitate to call them ‘schemes’) would of course be something that would be debated, with actual facts and studies and projected outcomes and such. But such a debate breaks down with tactics that attack a debater’s values, without first proving your OWN case for the benefits of the program. And saying “It’s better, 'cause it helps people” is not really an argument that tends to be effective. > > However, I do think that someone, without evaluating the costs/benefits of a program, automatically dismisses it because it looks like a ‘hand-out’ or ‘people getting something without working for it’ or ‘proposed by the party I am not a member of’ does indeed lack compassion for the people that the program will help. Someone working out AND SHOWING that the costs (concrete costs that can be measured and displayed) outweigh the benefits and basing their decision on that, then, no, they would not lack compassion by being against the program. I agree with this. I would just add that IMO the “compassion” sub-discussion in this particular thread has been of the first sort and not of the second. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/343 "2015-01-16T17:14:41Z")
“If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/344 "2015-01-16T18:37:39Z")
I’ve heard that sort of thing associated with this Jesus fellow, who may well be a fictional character. Please be advised that we have it on the very best authority that only a foolish person looks to a fictional character for guidance… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/345 "2015-01-16T20:01:43Z")
D’oh! Sorry, forgot. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/346 "2015-01-16T20:05:07Z")
Oh, would you look at this: [The CBO contradicted the King case a whopping 68 times](http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7554097/analysis-cbo-contradicted-the-latest-case-against-obamacare-68) But, y’know, the CBO doesn’t matter unless it adheres to the bullshit vertical integration behind this lawsuit. No, Gruber’s remarks are FAR more legally relevant. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/347 "2015-01-16T22:44:28Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’ve heard that sort of thing associated with this Jesus fellow, who may well be a fictional character. Please be advised that we have it on the very best authority that only a foolish person looks to a fictional character for guidance… I look to Jesus for guidance, but of course in my view He is not fictional. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2015, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/348 "2015-01-17T05:51:01Z")
Well, you got your Jesus of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers, Liberation Theology, then you got your Jesus of the “prosperity Gospel”, and Opus Dei. One of them’s got to be fictional. ---
**Author:** ![2ManyTacos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/3da27b/32.png) [@2ManyTacos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2ManyTacos)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2015, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/349 "2015-01-18T03:08:25Z")
Remember how part of my inspiration for the OP was pointing out the disingenuous insidiousness of Michael Cannon? Well, here’s further proof that this flagrant sociopath is [more than capable](https://twitter.com/_KJKelly/status/556300969668263936/photo/1) of correctly reading the ACA when it suits his bullshit purposes. I eagerly await the GOP retort. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/350 "2015-03-23T20:31:49Z")
One fig leaf that the left has been waving frantically around is the idea that the Court just HAS to uphold the ACA, because of all the horrible things that will supposedly happen if they don’t, since Congress (now) obviously won’t pass any laws to fix it. In other words, so the thinking goes, because Congress is so gridlocked, that fact should be considered by the Court in interpreting the statute. It should come as no surprise to my regular readers that I think that’s a load of horseshit. The Court should interpret the words of the statute, which don’t change meaning based on what the current composition of Congress is or on what actions Congress might take or not take in response to a particular Court decision. And of course it’s commonly considered that Justice Kennedy is a swing vote on matters like this. During his Hill testimony today, Justice Kennedy apparently signaled his agreement with that proposition: > [@](#): > > Some argue that gridlock should effect the way we interpret statutes. That seems to me the wrong proposition. We have to assume that we have 3 fully functioning branches of the government, committed to proceeding in good faith in good faith to resolve the problems of this Republic. If that’s a correct quote (right now, I only have Josh Blackman’s blog for the quote) that’s a good sign indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/351 "2015-03-23T20:46:17Z")
> [@](#): > > We have to assume that we have 3 fully functioning branches of the government, committed to proceeding in good faith in good faith to resolve the problems of this Republic. I can think of at least one branch which has decided that making one of the others look bad trumps resolving the problems of this republic. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/352 "2015-03-23T20:46:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I look to Jesus for guidance, but of course in my view He is not fictional. He could guide you just as well if he were. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/353 "2015-03-23T20:48:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, you got your Jesus of Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers, Liberation Theology, then you got your Jesus of the “prosperity Gospel”, and Opus Dei. > > One of them’s got to be fictional. Jesus is large. He contains multitudes. One might even say his name is Legion . . . ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/354 "2015-03-23T21:49:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that’s a correct quote (right now, I only have Josh Blackman’s blog for the quote) that’s a good sign indeed. It’s a good sign if you thought Kennedy was going to vote based on the statutory-construction-in-context-of-legislative-gridlock argument. Which he wasn’t, and neither was anyone else, but you knew that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/355 "2015-03-23T23:14:19Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s a good sign if you thought Kennedy was going to vote based on the statutory-construction-in-context-of-legislative-gridlock argument. Which he wasn’t, and neither was anyone else, but you knew that. Judging from the veritable explosion in Twitterverse following his statement, I was not alone in seeing this as a negative for the government’s position. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2015, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/356 "2015-03-23T23:24:34Z")
If you were entirely alone in your opinions, Sean Hannity would be begging spare change. ---
**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:** [March 23, 2015, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/357 "2015-03-23T23:27:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Judging from the veritable explosion in Twitterverse following his statement… Dude. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/358 "2015-03-24T13:43:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Judging from the veritable explosion in Twitterverse following his statement, I was not alone in seeing this as a negative for the government’s position. I’m not on Twitter, and notwithstanding its increasing legitimacy as a communications medium, I suspect I am not missing any insightful legal analysis. The court will either uphold the subsidies because the plaintiffs lack standing, or because of _Chevron_, or it won’t. No court has _ever_ (to the best of my knowledge) refused to strike down a statute because it’s worried the legislature won’t get around to reenacting it for a while. Or what **Richard Parker** said. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/359 "2015-03-24T14:58:59Z")
Has any court been this nakedly partisan, though? Why else would they even want to hear this nonsense? _If only_ this decision could be predicted based on legal analysis and precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625/360 "2015-03-24T15:21:26Z")
It’s not nonsense. As I’ve said from the beginning (or near it), there is a colorable argument here. Not the sort of argument that normally makes it beyond the trial court, but to the extent that this dispute is mostly one of statutory construction it really should be resolved at the appellate level. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-all-conservatives-who-have-bought-into-the-halbig-king-aca-trutherism-nonsense/707625.md?page=19)