The legality of executive action, if the government loses.
Bottom line: The road to fixing this legislative atrocity goes through Congress. But of course, the Democrats will blame Republicans, none of whom voted for it, for this mess.
84 thoughts on “King Versus Burwell”
Comments are closed.
So far I’m not seeing much admission from the democrats that there is a mess in the program as implemented. Never mind that every major failure foretold is coming to pass.
Obama said it didn’t need any fixing. Which explains why he is always altering the program.
Never mind that every major failure foretold is coming to pass.
Nope.
And didn’t you hear that even the GOP CBO with its “dynamic scoring” hand-waving concluded that the ACA is cutting the deficit by tens of billions per year?
Lol Vox?
“Rush Limbaugh predicted on his October 24 , 2013”
And then from the quote Vox provides,
“”The thing remarkable about those states is nobody’s signing up. New York state, nobody has gone to that website to sign up.””
Ahh so Rush is speaking in the present tense, that would be from 2013. But Vox is saying that was a prediction of the future. Vox uses temporal shifting frequently in that piece and it is a little dishonest but that isn’t surprising when Democrats talk about Obamacare.
Read the whole Rush transcript. He doesn’t describe the low enrollment numbers as temporary, or due to poor implementation — he cites the low enrollment even in well-run exchanges, and he blames them on the fact that the law’s implementers “have no real connection with the American people.” Within a few months his analysis was proven to be completely misguided.
“Read the whole Rush transcript.”
I read what was quoted and it didn’t support the accusation made by the author. Perhaps they should have picked a better quote. You read it, do you have a quote of his prediction that Vox was talking about?
I read it and didn’t find any prediction but this, “If the supposed brilliance and goodness and attractiveness of the law is not gonna attract people, then they’re gonna have to be forced, coerced into signing up and going.”
And that is why it is illegal not to have insurance and why people following the law to stay in good standing with the government. Most people are not criminals. They obey the law. Law abiding citizens not engaging in criminal activity aren’t signs of how well or poorly Obamacare works.
And that is why it is illegal not to have insurance and why people following the law to stay in good standing with the government. Most people are not criminals.
It isn’t illegal, or criminal, to not have insurance. When Rush was talking about all the people not signing up for insurance was he arguing that they were all choosing to be criminals? Of course not.
In late 2013 ACA critics claimed that enrollment would be low. In 2014, when enrollment had reached projections, they changed their tune, and argued that of course people bought insurance, because they had to! The law didn’t change, just the talking point.
“And that’s true, too, for the people who saw their plans canceled by Obamacare and then needed to decide whether to sign up for a new one.”
Vox is under the impression that having insurance is voluntary. You don’t have a choice. Clearly, people who already had insurance before Obamacare know about how useful it is. It didn’t take Obama cancelling their plans because they don’t offer free abortions and maternity leave for men to realize this.
People getting new insurance after their old plans were cancelled does not make Obamacare a success. It means that these people needed insurance and then spent countless hours shopping for new plans.
People getting new insurance after their old plans were cancelled does not make Obamacare a success.
Nobody says otherwise. Having 10+ more people insured than were insured before, now that (along with other things) is what makes the ACA a success.
Sorry, that should be 10+ million more people.
Even though they can’t get actual health care.
What an effing shill you are.
Most of the people who’ve gotten coverage through the law say they’re happy with it. Most say they can get an appointment within two weeks. Where do you get the idea that they can’t get health care?
What an effing shill you are.
Resorting to name-calling is a clue that you have no argument.
Obamacare was designed to greatly increase the number of Americans with health insurance. Its critics predicted it would fail to do so; they were wrong. That simple reality seems to drive the law’s critics batty.
“Obamacare was designed to greatly increase the number of Americans with health insurance.”
Way to move the goalposts.
Most say they can get an appointment within two weeks
I guess if you all that a success, but I’d say your bar is pretty low.
And on the probably inflated 10 million claim, the supporter predictions for Obamacare is its would insure the 50 million or so without insurance. So not only a low bar, but a moving bar heading lower. It’s what you must do to claim this crap is successful.
the supporter predictions for Obamacare is its would insure the 50 million or so without insurance
No. ACA projections, from the administration and CBO, forecast that it’d cut the number of uninsured by 20-30 million by the early 2020s. That was before the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of Medicaid expansion without losing traditional Medicaid. Given that change, the law is right on target with its authors’ predictions.
Its opponents predictions are another story. Here’s commenter Gregg’s take, from 2013:
Do you see Reid and Pelosi lining up for impeachment due to all the Obamacare dead?
Instead, the ACA has helped save tens of thousands of lives.
Gregg has already explained this and how you have shamelessly quoted him.
Gregg has already explained this and how you have shamelessly quoted him.
What is shameless about quoting a prediction? Do you think it’d be shameless to quote a prediction I made?
“Nobody says otherwise. ”
Uh, did you even read your Vox link?
Yes. Nowhere in that article does it make the claim that people replacing insurance makes Obamacare a success.
Jim, it did. Why even bother denying it?
Jim, it did. Why even bother denying it?
Because it doesn’t. Here’s what the article says:
That’s an argument that Obamacare is a success (“working reasonably well”) for a number of reasons, not simply because people replaced lost policies. Replacing lost policies doesn’t account for 11 million sign-ups (more than the number of lost policies), or the fact that more people have coverage than before, or the fact that people are happy with their coverage. As you correctly put it, “People getting new insurance after their old plans were cancelled does not make Obamacare a success.” It took more than that.
“Looking back over the past five years of Obamacare, its hard to find much evidence of Obamacare’s job-killing wrath. ”
They are trying to use numbers from before Obamacare was even implemented.
Is there anything honest in that link?
It’s a link from Jim, and it talks about job numbers. I remember when Jim claimed Obama shrunk the size of government by claiming the ramp of federal employees in 4Q2009 was caused by Bush.
Now you are forgetting your tenses. Republicans have claimed that Obamacare was destroying jobs, present tense, since the day it was passed. For example, they routinely accused it of causing employers to cut hours, long before the relevant employer mandate took effect. But in fact there’s been steady job growth since 2010, and 2014 — the first year of the exchanges and individual mandate — was the strongest year for job growth since 1999.
Jim, you either making it up or as we have seen all over this thread; copying it from others making it up (i.e. Vox). And I’ll repeat, not one thing you wrote has anything to do with case in front of the Supreme Court.
Now, do you care to refute the Architect of Obamacare claim that the lack of federal subsidy was intentional as punishment to states that refused to go along with the exchanges? Will you lie to us and claim Gruber wasn’t the Architect despite the numerous speeches and emails by Democrats claiming he was? Or do you plan on continuing the side show of fake claims about what Republicans, who didnt write or vote for this law, said, when their statements have no impact on the case?
“Is there anything honest in that link?”
Jim, it’s always amusing to see the antics you go through to square the circle. But Obamacare still has the same problems: various mechanisms that cause health insurance and care costs to balloon further, violation of the US Constitution, and increasing the burden on employers.
various mechanisms that cause health insurance and care costs to balloon further
You seem utterly unaware of what’s been happening with health care spending the last five years. Health care inflation is the lowest it’s been in decades. It’s the best domestic public policy news we’ve had in many years, no matter who or what is responsible. You sound like one of those people bemoaning the rise of crime, while the actual crime rate falls to new lows.
This is your proof? After all the links we’ve given you proving that Obamacare is a dismal failure and all you can say is nope.
Um, yep.
PeterH, above, claims that every — every — major ACA failure foretold by its critics has come to pass. That simply isn’t true — and I posted a link with some counter-examples.
Your link is weak tea. Just read the headlines. One type hypes bad things that haven’t even happened:
* “Why ACA Premiums Might Spike Dramatically”
* “ACA Fans Should Brace for a Tax Attack”
Others try to paint minor local events as indicting the law in general, such as:
* “Big Insurers Win as ACA Co-Op Collapses In Iowa ”
The failure of one insurance co-op in Iowa may be regrettable, or may just be the market at work, but either way it doesn’t mean the law is a failure.
Or:
* “Why Americans Choose ACA Penalty Over Insurance”
No doubt some Americans will pay the penalty rather than buy insurance — that was predicted by the law’s framers, and built into their projections. Meanwhile, the law has met its goal of greatly increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.
Or:
* “ER Use Grows Despite Rosy ACA Predicitions” (sic)
So we’re spending much, much less on health care than was predicted when the law passed, despite adding 10+ million to the insurance rolls, but we should toss the law because a survey says that ER use is up?
If your link is the best critique you can make of the ACA, the law should be judged a roaring success.
“PeterH, above, claims that every — every — major ACA failure foretold by its critics has come to pass. That simply isn’t true”
Yes, every single prediction didn’t come to pass and that means there is nothing wrong with Obamacare /rollseyes
every single prediction didn’t come to pass
Agreement!
and that means there is nothing wrong with Obamacare
Of course it doesn’t.
Headlines only instead of text. Brilliant response.
Here is the only prediction that matters: I think what’s important to remember politically about this, is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an Exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits.
the only prediction that matters
It doesn’t matter that none of the GOP’s major predictions — that the law would increase the deficit, kill job growth, explode premiums and spending, fail to increase the number of people covered — have come true? So much for accountability.
The GOP’s predictions have come true. Just to name one:
It has killed job growth. Look at the rise in part time jobs. This was done to avoid paying insurance.
And see above links for more. You are truly delusional. That inside the ideology mindset makes you completely oblivious to the pain and suffering happening around you.
It has killed job growth.
2014 has the best job growth since 1999!
Look at the rise in part time jobs.
What rise in part time jobs? From 2010 to mid-2014 part-time jobs were down by 900,000, while full-time jobs were up by 7.6 million!
It’s not like these facts are hard to find.
So you are saying Obamacare is killing part time jobs?
Yes, when your bar is set at zero!
As Ross Perot once said, doubling a penny gives you 100% growth.
All of them have come true. Begone, troll. If there are any honest Dems, send them our way.
“It doesn’t matter that none of the GOP’s major predictions ”
Oh wait a second, not every single one was wrong. You just went off on this a few comments up. That’s some pretty sloppy diction from a guy who likes to parse words down to the kerning.
And since not every single one was wrong, that means Obamacare sucks and should be eliminated, by your terms.
not every single one was wrong
The ones I was referring to — that the law would increase the deficit, kill job growth, explode premiums and spending, fail to increase the number of people covered — were all wrong. Which of these do you think actually happened?
They all have, as you are well aware. The main result (apart from most Americans becoming much more cognizant of Obama’s untrustworthiness) is that the law is more unpopular than ever, and trending lower still.
I suspect THIS is what really has you and your fellow minions scared sh*tless. You have been counting on this abominations existence, over time, to entangle itself sufficiently within the country’s psyche to make it un-repealable, and you know that hasn’t happened.
“Obamacare” it started out as, “Obamacare” is what it is today, and “Obamacare” is what it will always be referred to, even after it has been relegated to the dustbin. Sucks I know, but you should endeavor to come to grips with reality.
kill job growth
Job growth would have been much better without it, and it’s converted a lot of full-time to part-time jobs.
explode premiums and spending
That has happened.
fail to increase the number of people covered
It’s failed to increase the number covered with insurance they actually want, and many have lost their insurance. Like most else this administration has created, it’s a disaster.
They all have, as you are well aware.
No, none have.
the law is more unpopular than ever
No, in fact it’s more popular today than it has been at various points in the past (e.g. a year ago). It’s never been terribly popular, but there’s no major trend either up or down.
I suspect THIS is what really has you and your fellow minions scared sh*tless.
I was never sure that Obamacare would be a political win for the Democratic party, and it looks like it will never be one. But it’s clear that it’s helped a lot of people, and that’s what matters.
Job growth would have been much better without it
Impossible to know. But we do know that it didn’t kill job growth, which was the standard GOP charge.
That has happened.
No, it hasn’t. Health inflation has fallen so far that the federal government is spending less on health care with Obamacare than the 2010 CBO projected we’d be spending without it. Premium growth has been lower than in the years before the law was passed (see the Vox link, item 7).
It’s failed to increase the number covered with insurance they actually want
That wasn’t the charge (and even then I doubt it’s true, given the polling on ACA customer satisfaction).
Like most else this administration has created, it’s a disaster.
Your generic partisan disapproval aside, it’s a plain fact that the specific major charges made against the law (listed above) haven’t come to pass.
My disapproval is neither generic or partisan. You must be posting this insanity from some other universe.
My disapproval is neither generic or partisan
Then why write “Like most else this administration has created”, if not to state your generic disapproval of the administration on negative partisan grounds? To be clear, I’m not saying that you’re a Republican, just that you’re reliably anti-Democrat, and that informs your views of Obamacare, and leads you to repeat non-facts (e.g. the post-2010 “explosion” of health care spending).
I am reliably anti-Democrat, because Democrats are reliably anti-me, and anti-liberty.
It’s never been terribly popular, but there’s no major trend either up or down.
So why did it pass? For our own good? For people like you to loot the treasury? Like a true progressive, you’d rather shove your agenda down the throats of Americans. Because you “know better”
But it’s clear that it’s helped a lot of people, and that’s what matters.
Well, arbitrarily confiscating everyone’s property and redistributing it evenly across the entire population would also “help a lot of people”. But we don’t do that because it would hurt even more people. A pretty clear idea that for some reason completely escapes you.
The lawsuit has nothing to do with any of those things, Jim. Please try and educate yourself on the topic rather than copy pasting talking points.
They allllllready are.
It isn’t illegal, or criminal, to not have insurance.
Then why is there a fine?
There’s a penalty to give you another reason to buy insurance. That doesn’t make not buying insurance criminal, or illegal.
It’s a tax. The supreme court didn’t buy Jim’s stupid semantic game either. You are taxed if you refuse to get insurance, and if you don’t pay the tax, you committed a crime of tax evasion. You go to jail for tax evasion. So either you participate in buying health care insurance (not health care, because you can purchase annual exams directly from a doctor for far less than your premium and your deductible. You can also pay much less for getting a prescription for a cold or getting a broken arm or leg set), you pay a tax, or you go to jail for tax evasion.
It’s a tax.
One Supreme Court justice considered it a tax. Eight considered it a penalty. It’s a penalty.
You are taxed if you refuse to get insurance, and if you don’t pay the tax, you committed a crime of tax evasion.
If you earn income, and don’t pay the tax, you’ve committed a crime of tax evasion. Does that mean that earning income is illegal or criminal? Of course not.
It isn’t illegal or criminal to not have health insurance.
I can earn income and not pay a tax, because I didn’t earn enough income to exceed the minimum deduction. I can therefore not pay the tax. There is no exception for failing to get health insurance other than to pay the tax. You can call it a penalty, but the ramification is you still failed to pay the IRS the penalty, and they can put you in jail. You don’t go to jail for legal activities (well unless you make a YouTube video about Muslims).
Really Jim, Pelosi passed the law so you can read it, you should try doing it.
“One Supreme Court justice considered it a tax. Eight considered it a penalty. It’s a penalty.”
Lol, the majority decision said TAX. That is the only reason Obamacare is legal. Why do you always insist on being so dishonest?
“It isn’t illegal or criminal to not have health insurance.”
Oh so no one has to have insurance? Did anyone tell Obama that? FFS this is retarded.
OMG, a rose by any other name.
It’s hilarious that I gave Jim a bunch of links showing the negative effects of Obamacare and he’s ignored them.
As a typical leftist idiot, Jim’s brain shuts down when he encounters hard facts. It’s as if they don’t exist within range of his senses.
I love facts. Care to contribute any?
I gave you many. You gave me headlines.
A link to a search for “ACA” at a partisan website isn’t “many facts”, it’s laziness. The only fact you gave was “Look at the rise in part time jobs.” Except that isn’t a fact, because there’s been no such thing.
The American Interest is not partisan. Mead is actually a democrat.
Did you bother to read any of the posts? No. But I’m expected to read the Atlantic, which I did. Who is partisan?
So The American Interest is “not partisan”, but looking through the first four pages of their search results for “ACA”, every single article is anti-ACA. On this topic, at least, it might as well be published by the RNC.
Perhaps because they are in fact non-partisan, and objective?
Okay, then I won’t read the Atlantic, because it’s partisan, so stop posting links to them.
For a guy who drops off Vox links, you sure seem unaware of what partisan and bias are.
Look again, my reply is dated “June 22, 2015 At 7:06 PM”. Short version: if that’s the best you’ve got, you don’t have much.
Jim, care to pay my non-fine from last year?
Better yet, my friend is now two thousand dollars in debt because his deductible soared and now his medicine costs above his salary.
Thanks, thanks so much. You got what you wanted at the expense of others. What a fine American.
I see, no reply to this. This is just “anecdotal” evidence. A real person gets screwed, but it’s not facts, according to Jim.
I believe that is the definition of evil.
That’s one definition of evil, not the definition.
I have found that Democrats like to make fun of the people adversely affected by their policies. If you don’t like Obamacare, you deserve every bad thing that happens plus being made fun of. That you don’t like Obamacare because of the bad things that happened to you, doesn’t really matter to them.
Now, you take Obamacare away and Democrats will point out that there are 7 million poor people who won’t have insurance but the millions victimized by Obamacare don’t count and the perpetual victimization of the entire country by the government management of health care doesn’t count either.
On the general subject of Obamacare as a “disaster”, per Rand, comes this report today:
To put it another way, repealing this “disaster” would take insurance away from 7 percent of poor Americans.
Also in today’s news, a CBS/NYT poll finds 47% approval for Obamacare, the highest ever in that poll. Support for repeal is down to 31%.
The poll is about number if insured and nothing about quality of product. When poor are asked about paying for the insurance, they can’t afford it. That was in 2014, but the premiums went even higher this year, because the Affordable Care Act isn’t affordable. And that’s the whole point of the lawsuit, because if the states win, then the federal subsidies, which allow for polls of “I can afford healthcare only because the government illegally pays me off to say so” won’t be so easy for politicians to purchase. Jim can find marginally interesting polls only because Obama has violated his own law. Even Congressional staffers couldn’t afford ACA premiums until Obama, without a bill starting from the House, decided to just allocate budget to subsidize Congressional staff.
The poll is about number if insured and nothing about quality of product.
Other polls report that people are generally happy with their policies.
When poor are asked about paying for the insurance, they can’t afford it.
Clearly the answer is to take away federal subsidies! That will show those poor people.
The subsidies are merely redistribution of wealth from the taxpayers to the insurance industry. The poor aren’t getting anything from the subsidies, because they still have to pay the high deductible (which means full medical bills for common procedures) in order to actually get medical treatment. Or, as was the case prior to the scheme to pay off the insurance industry; the poor simply don’t pay anything at all to anybody by showing up to the ER and demanding treatment.
The issue about the federal subsidies is that they are illegal. I’m all for ending illegal activities, but I’m not surprised Jim, that you don’t care about Democrats breaking the law they wrote.
“Other polls report that people are generally happy with their policies.”
What does Obamacare have to do with that? You do realize people liked their old plans too right? Some of us liked our old plans a lot better.
Obamacare didn’t create health insurance, stop trying to imply it did.
“Clearly the answer is to take away federal subsidies! That will show those poor people.”
All their money goes to premiums and copays. Nothing is left over for treatment. And as Leland notes, you have to pay about $10k before health insurance starts picking up the tab for even little things. Heck even diagnostic tests aren’t covered as you keep claiming.
However people may feel about their insurance before using it, things change when you start needing the medical care and have to pay for it.
As someone with pre-existing conditions and some chronic health issues, Obamacare does nothing for me. There is no advantage over the old system but there are many drawbacks to the new one. Which sucks because Obamacare didn’t fix the things it was claimed it would and instead just added more problems to a messed up system.
“Even Congressional staffers couldn’t afford ACA premiums until Obama, without a bill starting from the House, decided to just allocate budget to subsidize Congressional staff.”
Isn’t it funny how Democrats want to make all of these rules and regulations and then immediately start carving out exceptions for individuals and groups connected to the Democrat party. Doesn’t happen with just Obamacare.
Democrats should try living under their own rules.
Speaking of facts, here’s a rebuttal to your biased Atlantic (known to be Pro Obama) article.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/04/initial-unemployment-claims-plunge-to.html
Here’s the meat of that “rebuttal”:
That’s right, just one anecdote, supposedly to explain a big drop in unemployment filing. But if millions of people were in this woman’s position, forced from full-time to part-time status by hour-limiting employers, we’d see loss of full-time jobs and growth in part-time workers. We see exactly the opposite.
Argument is more than just posting a link from someone who agrees with you. It requires actually thinking about the facts being argued. That’s hard to do if you aren’t familiar with the facts (see your comment on the “rise” in part-time workers).
You’re right. Just as a link to a partisan website is not “meat”. Tu quoque.