Well the President is now playing politics with the Justice department.
WAPO Justice Dept will Not Defend ACA
CNN Trump Admin will Not Defend ACA
However apparently Obama's crew set precedent recently...
What will be interesting is how the voting public will react in the mid-terms?
The Balance ACA Advantages
The Balance Disadvantages
538 ACA Opinions
The Hill Majority Supports ACA
WAPO Justice Dept will Not Defend ACA
CNN Trump Admin will Not Defend ACA
However apparently Obama's crew set precedent recently...
"But Bagley noted that the Trump administration "loathes the ACA" and the Obama administration's refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that defined marriage between a man and a woman back in 2011, sets precedent."If they succeed in trashing ACA, I sure am happy I don't have any pre-existing conditions. And I am still covered under my employer subsidized plan.
What will be interesting is how the voting public will react in the mid-terms?
The Balance ACA Advantages
The Balance Disadvantages
538 ACA Opinions
The Hill Majority Supports ACA
10 comments:
I don't think the president / executive branch has right to choose which laws to implement. DOMA was different because it was discriminatory - a basic civil rights issue.
Was Obama administration decision to not defend DOMA ever ruled on by any court?
Obama did skirt implementing immigration policy / law he didn't like also - with DACA.
The administration does have leeway on how laws/policy is implemented, but it was a stretch to say they would not deport any dreamers. I don't know if that was a proper thing to do legally but I think it was right morally.
I have never minded much being accused of being a hypocrite. When accused of having double standards, my astonished response is "You mean there are only two?" In general, I support the election process, even when my side loses. Even when my side wins but isn't allowed to take office. I am a fan of judicial passivity. I don't think it's up to unelected judges to decide policy, particularly on matters that were utterly remote from anything the founders could have thought about such as 21st care health care policy. But I am also aware that the founders failed to address the most pressing issues before them, and that their inaction led directly to the worst war in American history, and the substantial revision of the doctrine they drafted.
So what's today's hypocrisy? And can we keep the number of standards at least in the single digits? I think the legislatures should set education policy. Courts are ill equipped to do it. That our country, and my party played a huge role in it, had an aggressive legislative policy of discriminating against children, was a national tragedy and a national shame. No one denies that now. And so courageous people stood up and went to the courts to do what our legislators were too cowardly to do; they fought and changed the law. Hypocrisy was the path they chose, and they won and America is the better for it.
So what does this mean? When is hypocrisy acceptable? I think one place where it is ok is when the interests are just too important. I think the interests of children out weigh the interest of a lot of things, certainly the necessity of adherence to a sterile legal doctrine. What about health care? Republicans want to use the legislative process to deny care. Is this something that benefits us, in the way teaching children benefits us? Is a sicker America a better America. Well, I guess that's a debate we need to have.
--Hiram
"Republicans want to deny care." That is false on so many levels I'm not sure I can count it. First of all, people support the "Affordable Care Act" but completely dislike "Obamacare." And that includes at the time it was passed! Second, insurance is not care, and making insurance more expensive, as Obamacare does, is what is denying people access to health CARE. Third, those who could not afford it before-- the PEC people, for example, had public and private programs where they could get CARE if not insurance. Obamacare made that LESS likely.
And finally, the crazy SCOTUS ruling that it was Constitutional because it was a "tax," which Obama & Co. told us it absolutely, positively was not, is indefensible now that the "tax" has been set aside. It should have been declared unconstitutional long ago. Maybe now we can go back to the status quo ante-- it would be preferable.
Jerry,
The irony is that a majority of Americans like and support ACA at this time.
Just in time for the GOP to give themselves another black eye by destroying it instead of improving it...
I have always said there were things I liked and disliked about ACA. Actually pretty much the only thing I disliked was the funding mechanism. (tax successful folks to give unsuccessful people stuff) Oh yeah one more issue...Pre-Existing Condition Fraud But that could have been fixed by raising the tax penalty of not having insurance significantly.
Otherwise it was hard to beat...
- Standardized Insurance Plans
- Transparent Markets
- Pre-existing condition coverage
- Slidind subsidy scale based on income
- etc
And of course the GOP wants to deny care to those who can not afford it...
They seem to think that charities will somehow pay those huge bills incurred by modern healthcare...
Again, I am very thankful that I am healthy, employed, etc...
Laurie,
"DOMA was different because it was discriminatory - a basic civil rights issue."
Please remember that the Conservative people see ACA as a civil rights issue also...
"No one should be forced to pay for certain insurance levels or help their fellow citizens... In fact they should be allowed to freeload, have no insurance and transfer the cost of their treatment to the tax payers when they get ill."
Sound kind of like a GOP guy? :-)
unrelated link on income inequality:
A Look At Income Inequality Around the World: It’s a Choice, Not a Destiny
My hypocrisy often turns on a matter of scale. I think discrimination against children is a big deal. I think extending marriage rights to get married is a big deal. I couldn't care less who bakes cakes for whom. If religious people want to reduce their faith to a matter of cake baking, that is certainly their right under the first amendment.
--Hiram
Agreed
Post a Comment