Solid red and the woman who ran against our illustrious governor had no chance. I don’t think she must have gotten much support as her campaign was very lackluster.
Actually, I’ve seen recent articles suggesting Texas could be a swing state in the next election, meaning it could go for the Democratic candidate. The articles mentioned the large percentage of Latino voters (who generally vote Democratic) and the larger cities in the state (which are also more liberal).
But there’s nothing inherently unconstitutional about Congress exercising its legislative power to eliminate taxes. Throwing out a law that is a perfectly legal use of legislative power would be extraordinary.
I’ve been hearing this too but don’t see it happening when Texas just automatically votes for the next white Republican male gubernatorial candidate, no matter who it is, no matter what crap they spew. Apparently most Texans drink the GOP tea on the ACA.
We are talking about throwing out a hugely complex law because it cannot be separated from a single portion of the law that has been altered to the point where it no longer does anything, and has been deemed unconstitutional BECAUSE it no longer does anything.
We live in extraordinary times.
I had this same thought and I don’t have the answer. Doesn’t this open up the opportunity to undo any law that you don’t like by adding something to it that makes it unconstitutional?
I’ve heard this as well.
I’ve also heard there is a man who lives at the North Pole who delivers present to children all over the world every December 25th, there is a rabbit who hides eggs every Easter morning and a little fairy who puts money under your pillow when you lose a tooth.
I consider all of these things to be equally likely of being correct.
If these three judges declare that the ACA is unconstitutional, what would be the practical effect on insurance-holders in the weeks and months following?
I know there will be appeals, but I’m wondering what the effect would be to pull the rug out from under millions of people who are covered by the ACA.
Would people lose all their coverage right away? Let’s say someone is scheduled to have 35 radiation treatments for breast cancer, and they’ve had five so far. Would they have to stop? If they try to get more coverage from somewhere, would they be turned down because of pre-existing condition?
HAS ANYONE WHO GIVES A FUCK EVEN THOUGHT THIS THROUGH??? (Of course not. On the gives a fuck part.)
Am I correct in believing that the only thing Republicans really have against the ACA is that it’s Obama’s baby?
That, plus the fact that they might be paying for something which doesn’t benefit them. Doubly/trebly so if the person receiving the benefit is poor because of the bad choices they made (such as choosing parents who didn’t have a boatload of money).
People covered under current plans would remain in them until renewal, when their employer can then select non-ACA compliant plans (with pre-existing conditions clauses, with caps on how much the insurance company has to pay per covered person (or per family), etc.
What about those people who don’t have plans through their employer? Would the subsidy go away immediately?
The goal is to neuter the state’s capacity to operate in the public interest. Once you have a government that ceases to serve the public interest, many individuals will become powerless to stop private power. In their view, it’s worth it to throw millions of people off of healthcare because it makes the government seem dysfunctional, and people will therefore expect less from it.
This is the same approach they’re taking with other social programs, and why they do not give a shit about the deficit now because if they can create a budget crisis, they can then shrug their shoulders and say “Welp, looks like Medicare and SS ain’t got no money left. See, we told you mooches these crazy big gubmint ideas wouldn’t work.”
I think the courts if they find they have to agree with the plaintiff’s argument should take the most limited action to resolve the issue - in this case, throw out the individual mandate which is effective already gone. I do not think the courts ought to hold that, say, because the tax/penalty is eliminated, Medicaid expansion should be thrown out with the bathwater (for example).
I think it’s like a chemistry question: if two agents are by themselves harmless, but combined they are toxic. Picking which agent is the problem would be arbitrary, and I can see the logic that both should be designated as the problem - even though again both are by themselves benign.
This thread wasn’t quite zombified. Sadly, the topic is still front and center. Sigh.
Is there anyone left who still buys the “strong new health care plan for America at some point in the future” bullshit?
You know, if they really wanted to do a whole lot of damage to the democratic prospects in office, they could have rolled out a healthcare plan that actually was superior to ACA(probably not hard).
But that they haven’t, and insist that it has to be dismantled without anything to replace it tells me that they aren’t interested in actually governing.
The chant was “repeal and replace”. They haven’t quite figured out how to repeal, in nearly four years. I’m guessing the replace portion will take much longer. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
So, how many politicians run for re-election with the exact same platform as the first time?
He can still do all the hits:
Repeal and Replace
Lock her up!
Build that wall. And Mexico will pay for it.
Rebuild infrastructure.
Get new trade deals.
I think the only thing the Trump campaign is thinking about at the moment is what The Orange Anus told them:
“Get out there and find me a new insulting nickname for Biden! That will turn things around!”
Now the orange man-baby says he’s going to sign an executive order requiring health insurers to cover preexisting conditions.
I guess he’s really counting on the ACA being overturned but he can say he’s still making sure those with preexisting conditions won’t be affected because of his EO.
Only would such an EO actually do anything? I suspect it won’t because it won’t have any actual law to support it. There won’t be anything to keep those policies affordable. Plus I’m not sure private businesses (insurance companies) actually have to do what an EO says. Anybody know? Kind of similar to banning Tik Tok with an EO?