I’ll take that over the Gruberization of the Democratic Party. And yes, I know I’m just aping a popular talking point, but it’s so true. They’ve built their agenda recently on duping Americans, who they believe to be stupid and too selfish to be told the truth.
Once again, Gruber was talking about the mouth breathers who think that Taxes are a sin against the baby Jesus when he mentions the stupidity of America.
It’s kind of hard to imagine how on earth McTurtle can possibly do some legitimate governing when he’s already planning shit like this. A hidden facet of this article: this is the first piece which indicates that, yes, the GOP does want to eliminate Medicaid expansion.
While no one believes repealing the Affordable Care Act is feasible with President Barack Obama still in office, Republicans are eager to use a special procedure that might let them kill at least a large piece of the law — potentially the Medicaid expansion, subsidies for purchasing health insurance or even the individual mandate — with only a simple majority.
That’s legitimately unsettling, and it would spark far more public outrage than killing HC.Gov subsidies, which itself would be outrageous enough.
For quite a few, including the segment who have been told to believe in death panels and are too fucking lazy to have actually *read *the bill, and the many who believe that there will be a Republican alternative bill in their lifetimes, that is indeed the evidence, isn’t it?
The President strongly disagrees.
Does he really? 
Do you, and why? Show your work.
I think Americans aren’t good with details, but I think they get the big picture better than most of us. It’s a wisdom of crowds thing. The public may not know all the details of the health care law, but if they don’t like it, then they have some good reasons. In polls the public believes that the law doesn’t benefit them, but that it does benefit the poor. And I’d say it’s pretty hard to argue that the purpose of ACA is to extend health insurance to the uninsured. At $1 trillion over 10 years, that was too much for most voters, plus there was the effect on their own insurance plans to consider.
So no, I don’t think the public is stupid, and their selfishness is limited to what any reasonable person would be selfish about. Everyone is willing to help the poor. Most of us aren’t inclined to dedicate a huge chunk of our income to the purpose when we’re not exactly living the dream ourselves.
How about listing the main ones that are not based on your party’s lies? :rolleyes:
Really now? 
Did you leave out a “not” in that one? And if not, what do you think the purpose actually is?
How about a few prominent examples of your own party doing that, then? Will that the purpose of the Republican Alternative Bill you keep telling us about?
Except that isn’t what’s happening, is it?
Gruber was right.
Here’s another great article from Bagley about all of the weirdness & chaos that would ensue in light of an activist SCOTUS ruling in King.
“Weirdness and chaos” is not a good legal argument.
The public’s perception is colored by the fact that the people you vote for have been lying about the law for years.
But it is a good motivator for people who don’t usually find much reason to vote.
Yes, I am sure they will all go out and vote out the Supreme Court justices.
They will against the candidates who support the decision. Didn’t think about that, didja!
That isn’t my argument.
I’ve already made my argument in this thread & others in GD about why King is so, so stupid. But again, for (I think) the third time ITT, I gotta link you to Bagley’s article. He annihilates the King argument with far more eloquence than I can do on the SDMB.
Conservatives are outraged - outraged I tell you - that the ACA hurts free health clinics.
These clinics, mind you, exist in the first place because of systemic failures in the US’s for-profit health care system. Still, file this under the latest batch of enormously stupid anti-ACA GOP memes.
It’s worth pointing out that the massive decline in uninsurance hasn’t been this pronounced since Medicare & Medicaid took effect.
So, obviously we need SCOTUS to invalidate the subsidies & return the uninsurance rate to '09 levels. Contrary to all common sense, that would be a good thing, because of, um, freedom, and, y’know, American Exceptionalism.
Obamacare fails to destroy employer-provided group health insurance:
At the risk of disrupting this echo chamber, Bagley’s argument can be summarized as:
-
Opponents cannot successfully hinge an argument on just three words “by the State”.
-
Supporters can successfully hang their argument on just three words “operate such Exchange”
-
Supporters say it must mean something when the word Exchange is capitalized. See. It’s Obvious. Capitalized words are Important.
-
Opponents are mistaken to think Congress threatened the states in order to get them to set up exchanges. There were no threats in the PPACA. (Well, let’s totally ignore the Medicaid Expansion threat that was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.)
There are arguments, both pro and con, on the subsidy issue but Bagley has hardly annihilated anything. He has rehashed arguments that have already been rejected, even by judges on the 4th Circuit panel who supported the administration’s position.
Jonathan Adler, one of the law professors credited with developing the argument used in King v Burwell to attack the PPACA agrees there is a reasonable argument the government can make in support of their position.
Adler recommends a reading of the Ziff Blog as a reasoned liberal argument on the issues of King v Burwell. The liberal side needs to argue not that the appellants have no case, but rather that the appellants’ case is insufficient as a matter of law.
Ziff even points to a better article by Bagley that attempts to address the “established by the State” language of the PPACA. Bagley himself concludes ambiguity is the best the government has. And “when you’ve got an ambiguity, it’s up to the agencies charged with interpreting the ACA to resolve that ambiguity. The tie goes to the government.”
And that is the pathway to victory the government needs to follow if it hopes to defend subsidies on the federally established exchanges. They need to show sufficient ambiguity in the text of the law and insufficient Congressional intent to the contrary, so that the IRS interpretation can be given deference.
The SCOTUS arguments for King have been set for March 4th. I hope that the SG gets his shit together for this one, unlike his lackluster showing in 2012.