Hey, most of you said the Republican alternative would be not nearly as good as Obamacare.
Anyway, Republicans don’t have to repeal ACA. All they have to do is win the Presidency and the President can just not enforce the parts he doesn’t like. THe precedent has been established that this law is whatever the President says it is.
The Republican alternative has, for years, been simply “Fuck off”. So, yes.
Now, how about answering the question instead of repeating ignorant Fox potshots? :dubious: What would you, adaher, consider a victory? What is important to you - simply taking all of us back just so the Democrats can’t claim a victory themselves? Is it really on that level for you?
Victory is repealing ACA and replacing it with the Republican alternative. Or simply gutting it by Presidential fiat in 2017.
The Republican alternative was always “do nothing” until ACA made that impossible. So having the GOP actually do something would be progress.
Bullshit. The law gives him flexibility, and he used it. Doesn’t mean the law gives a president unlimited flexibility.
Nope. He used the word “repeal” wrong. He clearly says he wants to fix it. That might mean “repealing” it – but then enacting a similar, fixed version. Don’t let it confuse you.
If this was Politifact, that statement would be rated “Mostly True”. The GOP has voted for and implemented incremental health care policies for decades, but it’s true that they never supported comprehensive solutions. ACA forced them to come up with an alternative.
The law does not give him the option of not enforcing the employer mandate. Also, the decision to provide subsidies for federal exchanges was based on an interpretation of the law that is at odds with its language. While the courts are unlikely to overturn it, a Republican President could, simply by changing the interpretation. Further, what health insurers are required to cover is decided by HHS for the most part. A Republican President can order his HHS to interpret that section of the law as narrowly as possible. Finally, if the employer mandate can be set aside at will by the President, so can the individual mandate.
So a Republican President can get rid of the employer mandate, the individual mandate, many of the insurer mandates, and subsidies in 36 states.
If by some stroke of lunacy a Republican is elected in 2016, I can only pray he is crazy enough to pursue those policies. That would prove monumentally unpopular with millions of Americans who have come to depend on the ACA for access to health insurance.
And quite popular with the 150 million Americans who don’t like the law. Even more popular with the millions who can now buy their “inadequate” plans again that they were satisfied with and promised they could keep.
And having no insurance at all was popular with some too. Like those with inadequate plans, they were also freeloaders who were willing to let the rest of us cover their bills in the event of an accident or severe sickness. Now they have to be responsible like the rest of us. You as a conservative should appreciate that, especially since conservatives invented the idea.
And repudiated it as soon as someone said, “Hey, ya know, that might not be constitutional at the federal level.”
And while we’re talking about winning political messages, calling what is essentially the Democratic base “freeloaders” won’t do Democrats much more good than it did Mitt Romney. Besides, it messes up the message. ACA wasn’t about getting freeloaders to pay into the system, it was about getting those unfortunates health insurance. Very mixed message you’re sending with this argument.
Remind us again; which part of the current law is unconstitutional?
Um, no, the SCOTUS has already ruled.
We’re not. We’re talking about good policies. Thanks for revealing that you don’t give a damn about that, but only politics. It’s obvious anyway.
I was just trying to tailor my message to fit typical conservative thought - you know, getting freeloaders to stop mooching off of the rest of us. What, was that a bunch of hooey?
The mandate as a criminal violation resulting in a fine, under Congress’ commerce clause, is illegal.
It is legal as a simple tax. Not buying health insurance has exactly the same legal status as buying a boat.
SCOTUS ruled that Congress can tax pretty much anything it wants. Congress cannot however, mandate the purchase of something under threat of criminal sanctions, even criminal sanctions as minor as a fine.
Your argument doesn’t hold up as good policy either. Fundamental to good policy is determining what your objective is. What is the primary objective of ACA? To cover the uninsured. Not because they are freeloaders, but because they are in need of health coverage.
Part of a good policy to extend coverage would be to avoid disruptions to the coverage of the 80-85% who had it. Thus, promises were made, but broken.
I don’t know, since that’s never been the way I’ve thought of the issue. The brief flirtation with the individual mandate aside, Republicans have always beeni n favor of voluntary insurance and opposed to government mandated insurance. The first iteration of Medicare was passed during the Eisenhower administration and it was voluntary. Eisenhower and most Republicans opposed mandatory insurance for the elderly. Opposition to mandatory insurance goes back a long way and wasn’t just discovered in 2009. the support of the mandate in the 90s was an aberration.
Republicans believe, as Democrats do, that the purpose of health care reform is to get health coverage to those who need it. Candidate Obama believed the same thing. One of many promises he broke. With more to come.
I’m sure Congress will bear that in mind for the future. However, SCOTUS saw fit to allow the individual mandate to stand, so it is not unconstitutional.
SCOTUS also ruled the mandated Medicaid expansion unconstitutional. The majority opinion liked it to holding a gun to the head of the states. On that issue 7 of the 9 justices agreed that the medicaid expansion was unacceptably coercive.
Whether that “too coercive” rationale could be considered in the context of another case would be interesting. This could place a minimal limit on the rationale that upheld the individual mandate - Congress can tax you for doing things it cannot require you to do.
So, if premiums become too high could SCOTUS’s previously stated logic be used to torpedo the individual mandate?
You’re right, but it’s still an important victory, because there is a big difference between a mandate and a tax. They can call it “the individual mandate” all they want, but it’s not legally a mandate. It’s just a tax, with the same moral status as any other tax. It is just as legal for me to get a job and pay taxes on the income as it is for me to not have health insurance and pay the Personal Responsibility Tax.
probably not, but I would imagine the electoral system would take care of that problem in a hurry. The mandate is only as enforceable as public tolerance allows. Which even now, is not much. The IRS has only one enforcement tool: they can dock your refund.
So basically, the individual mandate doesn’t even really exist. It’s easy to evade and there are no legal consequences to evasion. And if some arise, SCOTUS is very likely to slap Congress down.