View Poll Results: Is Elizabeth Warren about why the trade deal is kept secret?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 64.29%
  • No

    4 28.57%
  • other/maybe

    1 7.14%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 82 of 82

Thread: Is Elizibeth Warren about why the trade deal is kept secret?

  1. #81
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    Re: Is Elizibeth Warren about why the trade deal is kept secret?

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    You praised all the scrutiny the bill got, there is no technicality as you call it. It was deliberate to force the states to have an exchange. It backfired and the SC will rule against it. And now you have no control to fix it.
    That whole narrative about trying to coerce the states into setting up exchanges was first dreamed up years after the bill was signed into law. If I recall correctly, it was somebody at the American Enterprise Institute (or maybe it was Heritage) that came up with it during a brainstorming conference to try to come up with ways to mount legal challenges against the ACA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    Let me clear it up for you, the SC has no power to measure the results, it rules on the merits.
    That argument kind of cuts both ways. Yes, the Supreme Court is bad at evaluating policy impacts. So, some people argue that means that it should just ignore policy impacts and rule purely on legal doctrine. But, that leads to a kind of a bizarre result where the Supreme Court is making massive policy decisions, like eliminating health coverage for about 8 million people, precisely because it is really bad at making those kinds of decisions. So, other people argue that the Supreme Court being bad at policy making means that it should try to steer away from making big changes to policy, which would mean preserving the subsidies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Born Free View Post
    But the best part is Obamacare is done, dead, no more. And that is the best thing of all.
    You may not be clear about what is at issue in the case. There is no outcome that would mean nixing the entire ACA. What is at issue is only the federal subsidies for people in states that didn't set up exchanges. If the plaintiffs win completely, that would mean that the federal government could no longer pay the subsidies to people who got insurance through the federal exchange. So, basically, it would mean that poor people in red states would no longer be able to afford their insurance unless either the federal Republicans fixed it or their state legislatures fixed it.

  2. #82
    Sage
    Born Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sonny and Nice
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:52 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,167

    Re: Is Elizibeth Warren about why the trade deal is kept secret?

    Quote Originally Posted by tuhaybey View Post
    That whole narrative about trying to coerce the states into setting up exchanges was first dreamed up years after the bill was signed into law. If I recall correctly, it was somebody at the American Enterprise Institute (or maybe it was Heritage) that came up with it during a brainstorming conference to try to come up with ways to mount legal challenges against the ACA.
    Your a loyalist, you defend at all cost. However your going to lose.

    That argument kind of cuts both ways. Yes, the Supreme Court is bad at evaluating policy impacts. So, some people argue that means that it should just ignore policy impacts and rule purely on legal doctrine. But, that leads to a kind of a bizarre result where the Supreme Court is making massive policy decisions, like eliminating health coverage for about 8 million people, precisely because it is really bad at making those kinds of decisions. So, other people argue that the Supreme Court being bad at policy making means that it should try to steer away from making big changes to policy, which would mean preserving the subsidies.
    The job of the SC is strictly to judge the merits of the case. It does not make law nor does it make policy decisions that is up to congress. It's clear how the law was written and it's purpose. The SC will rule against it, and it'll be up to congress to fix it, not the SC.

    You may not be clear about what is at issue in the case. There is no outcome that would mean nixing the entire ACA. What is at issue is only the federal subsidies for people in states that didn't set up exchanges. If the plaintiffs win completely, that would mean that the federal government could no longer pay the subsidies to people who got insurance through the federal exchange. So, basically, it would mean that poor people in red states would no longer be able to afford their insurance unless either the federal Republicans fixed it or their state legislatures fixed it.
    That is exactly right, it's the job of congress to fix the problem, not the SC. And with a Republican congress they will kill Obamacare and start over and this time it will be a bipartisan healthcare bill. Not one that was jammed down the peoples throat and one that the Dems had to bride some of their own to pass this failed job killing, higher insurance cost monstrosity.
    Liberals - Punish the Successful, Reward the Unsuccessful
    Liberals - Tax, Borrow, Spend, and Give Free Stuff
    Obama's legacy - President Donald Trump

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •