What comes after the ACA?

[WhiteTrashCash]

I keep asking Republicans I know in Michigan who depend on either Medicaid or the Marketplace what are they going to do if these get repealed?  I get magical thinking type answers.

People on Hillbilly Mountain think Trump is telling the truth when he says he is going to replace the ACA with something better, even though he's had four years and hasn't offered anything other than a high deductible plan that doesn't offer as any features as the ACA. The folks on Hillbilly Mountain are backing the Elephants against the Donkeys because 1.) It's like their sports team and you always support the home team, and 2.) The Democrats purged their party of anybody who opposes abortion and the folks on Hillbilly Mountain consider that to be infanticide. The second is really the biggest reason. They reason that losing their healthcare is a small price to pay if it saves the lives of millions of children.

Conservatives are very strongly interested in protecting the lives of innocent children (outside of the things they expect parents to do for them.) That's why you have the QAnon "Save the Children" rallies and Comet Ping Pong nonsense.

[rmorris50]

I keep asking Republicans I know in Michigan who depend on either Medicaid or the Marketplace what are they going to do if these get repealed?  I get magical thinking type answers.

People on Hillbilly Mountain think Trump is telling the truth when he says he is going to replace the ACA with something better, even though he's had four years and hasn't offered anything other than a high deductible plan that doesn't offer as any features as the ACA. The folks on Hillbilly Mountain are backing the Elephants against the Donkeys because 1.) It's like their sports team and you always support the home team, and 2.) The Democrats purged their party of anybody who opposes abortion and the folks on Hillbilly Mountain consider that to be infanticide. The second is really the biggest reason. They reason that losing their healthcare is a small price to pay if it saves the lives of millions of children.

Conservatives are very strongly interested in protecting the lives of innocent children (outside of the things they expect parents to do for them.) That's why you have the QAnon "Save the Children" rallies and Comet Ping Pong nonsense.

Or in other words, #effliberals. That is the overarching reason conservatives support Trump, it’s literally #effliberals and Trump gives them that voice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bmjohnson35]

Healthcare is such a HUGE issue.  It's sad that our elected officials continue to fail to properly address this fundamental issue.    It's really the only option beyond employer sponsored coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.  We also really need a fundamental shift in the healthcare industry.  It's only service industry I have used that is unwilling to provide a quote or even a reasonable estimate PRIOR to services rendered. I'm generally not a fan of increased regulation, but this industry appears unwilling to address their flaws.

Running around stating that the sky is falling is a waste of energy. Politicians promise many things and deliver very little.  I am cautiously optimistic that the ACA or some variation of it will remain.  If you are working toward FIRE or have reached FIRE, you are a likely a person who overcomes obstacles anyway. 

ACA is critical to my continued FIRE.  I wouldn't have retired earlier this year if I didn't have it.  Even if it is overruled and this option goes away, I wouldn't regret taking the time off.  I would simply find a job that offers coverage and go back to work.

[rantk81]

Or in other words, #effliberals. That is the overarching reason conservatives support Trump, it’s literally #effliberals and Trump gives them that voice.

This aligns with what I see posted all over the place online.  For "Team Red", it is very often that they just care about "owning the libs" or "making lib heads explode" rather than actually talk about policy details!  It's pretty disgusting.  Anyway, I think those people are basically a "lost cause".

At the same time, calling them "hillbillies" is derogatory too, and I'd prefer to avoid that nomenclature, although it is clear that the people being referred to generally share a several commonalities (live in rural area, white, more religious than average, less affluent, often received less education, etc.)

[American GenX]

The republicans have set a timeline for confirming a new SCOTUS justice, so that justice will be able to hear the ACA case scheduled for November.  There's a lot of concern in the media and elsewhere that the ACA will fall, rightfully so.  If by some chance, the democrats squeak out a Senate majority in the election and win the presidency, they would need to pass something meaningful that will stand with the new makeup of the court.  What are the odds of all of those things falling in place?  Not good.

[maizefolk]

Or in other words, #effliberals. That is the overarching reason conservatives support Trump, it’s literally #effliberals and Trump gives them that voice.

This aligns with what I see posted all over the place online.  For "Team Red", it is very often that they just care about "owning the libs" or "making lib heads explode" rather than actually talk about policy details!  It's pretty disgusting.  Anyway, I think those people are basically a "lost cause".

At the same time, calling them "hillbillies" is derogatory too, and I'd prefer to avoid that nomenclature, although it is clear that the people being referred to generally share a several commonalities (live in rural area, white, more religious than average, less affluent, often received less education, etc.)

Well said. I agree a lot of those folks are beyond reaching. And at the same time it is important to keep your second paragraph in mind, because while the "owning the libs" crowd is indeed more white, more rural, less affluent and less educated, there are still lots of other people who fall into those categories who ARE reachable and aren't writing owning the libs stuff online.

And if we let our side appear hostile to people based on their race, their gender, where they live, or what church they go to (if any) without calling it out, we're making it easier for the other side to reel in those voters and harder for us to reach the people who are still reachable.

[Exflyboy]

The republicans have set a timeline for confirming a new SCOTUS justice, so that justice will be able to hear the ACA case scheduled for November.  There's a lot of concern in the media and elsewhere that the ACA will fall, rightfully so.  If by some chance, the democrats squeak out a Senate majority in the election and win the presidency, they would need to pass something meaningful that will stand with the new makeup of the court.  What are the odds of all of those things falling in place?  Not good.

Well of course Its not as simple as SCOTUS = Conservative = ACA dead.

I'm sure the nominee is well aware that in order to get nominated she will have to indicate (to Trump) she will vote against the ACA. Beyond that, how the rest of the court swings on the issue is not clear.

I suspect SCOTUS will vote to sever the "mandate" from the rest of the law.

I mean the ACA is not offending beliefs of "protecting the unborn".. (I mean we all know that when you criminalise something it stops it immediately.. Look at how well the "War on drugs" works!). This is simply a political football.

I guess I'm hopeful that SCOTUS will look at the legality of the ACA and keep most of it simply due to the chaos it will cause in the insurance markets.

[bacchi]

The republicans have set a timeline for confirming a new SCOTUS justice, so that justice will be able to hear the ACA case scheduled for November.  There's a lot of concern in the media and elsewhere that the ACA will fall, rightfully so.  If by some chance, the democrats squeak out a Senate majority in the election and win the presidency, they would need to pass something meaningful that will stand with the new makeup of the court.  What are the odds of all of those things falling in place?  Not good.

Well of course Its not as simple as SCOTUS = Conservative = ACA dead.

I'm sure the nominee is well aware that in order to get nominated she will have to indicate (to Trump) she will vote against the ACA. Beyond that, how the rest of the court swings on the issue is not clear.

I suspect SCOTUS will vote to sever the "mandate" from the rest of the law.

I mean the ACA is not offending beliefs of "protecting the unborn".. (I mean we all know that when you criminalise something it stops it immediately.. Look at how well the "War on drugs" works!). This is simply a political football.

I guess I'm hopeful that SCOTUS will look at the legality of the ACA and keep most of it simply due to the chaos it will cause in the insurance markets.

You're more optimistic than I am.

Barrett has spoken out against the Roberts ACA decisions and Gorsuch isn't a big fan of severability.

We also have Trump's recent EO to preserve preexisting condition coverage. He knows it's going to fall. He's planning for it to fall.

He presented some good ideas yesterday (https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/electioncoverage/88810) but it's all useless -- even if Congress passes his ideas -- if no one can afford the plans.

[SugarMountain]

The republicans have set a timeline for confirming a new SCOTUS justice, so that justice will be able to hear the ACA case scheduled for November.  There's a lot of concern in the media and elsewhere that the ACA will fall, rightfully so.  If by some chance, the democrats squeak out a Senate majority in the election and win the presidency, they would need to pass something meaningful that will stand with the new makeup of the court.  What are the odds of all of those things falling in place?  Not good.

Well of course Its not as simple as SCOTUS = Conservative = ACA dead.

I'm sure the nominee is well aware that in order to get nominated she will have to indicate (to Trump) she will vote against the ACA. Beyond that, how the rest of the court swings on the issue is not clear.

I suspect SCOTUS will vote to sever the "mandate" from the rest of the law.

I mean the ACA is not offending beliefs of "protecting the unborn".. (I mean we all know that when you criminalise something it stops it immediately.. Look at how well the "War on drugs" works!). This is simply a political football.

I guess I'm hopeful that SCOTUS will look at the legality of the ACA and keep most of it simply due to the chaos it will cause in the insurance markets.

You're more optimistic than I am.

Barrett has spoken out against the Roberts ACA decisions and Gorsuch isn't a big fan of severability.

We also have Trump's recent EO to preserve preexisting condition coverage. He knows it's going to fall. He's planning for it to fall.

He presented some good ideas yesterday (https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/electioncoverage/88810) but it's all useless -- even if Congress passes his ideas -- if no one can afford the plans.

ACA is done. Cooked. Gone. Now if Biden gets elected and gets a Senate majority, there's a small chance they'll abolish the filibuster and redo it or something similar, but I don't put much hope in it. He'll try to be bipartisan and the Republicans will run the clock on that for 2 years hoping to retake one of the chambers. For all the BS republican propaganda that he's somehow a socialist, he's really just an institutionalist. So don't count on him expanding the court to 13 justices or adding states or pushing Schumer to abolish the filibuster. And that's assuming he wins and the Dems retake the Senate. If both those things don't happen, look for the ACA to be gone/gutted with no replacement and those with pre-existing conditions to be SOL. Gotten Covid? That's a pre-existing condition. Sorry. Overweight, gotten a skin cancer removed, had a cyst removed during your colonoscopy when you turned 50? Congrats, you're now uninsurable until you turn 65.

How anyone in the American fire community can support Republicans is baffling to me.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I guess I'm hopeful that SCOTUS will look at the legality of the ACA and keep most of it simply due to the chaos it will cause in the insurance markets.

When the  Court considers the applicability of stare decsis the reliance interest of businesses is given considerable weight in favor of applying stare decisis.

[John Galt incarnate!]

ACA is done. Cooked. Gone. Now if Biden gets elected and gets a Senate majority, there's a small chance they'll abolish the filibuster and redo it or something similar, but I don't put much hope in it. He'll try to be bipartisan and the Republicans will run the clock on that for 2 years hoping to retake one of the chambers. For all the BS republican propaganda that he's somehow a socialist, he's really just an institutionalist. So don't count on him expanding the court to 13 justices or adding states or pushing Schumer to abolish the filibuster. And that's assuming he wins and the Dems retake the Senate. If both those things don't happen, look for the ACA to be gone/gutted with no replacement and those with pre-existing conditions to be SOL. Gotten Covid? That's a pre-existing condition. Sorry. Overweight, gotten a skin cancer removed, had a cyst removed during your colonoscopy when you turned 50? Congrats, you're now uninsurable until you turn 65.

How anyone in the American fire community can support Republicans is baffling to me.

Do you think  the  ACA's underpinnings are "plainly and palpably, beyond all question, in violation of the fundamental law of the Constitution"?

Among other criteria, the Court would have to  find they are to support a rationale that warrants  overturning the ACA.

Keep in mind that when the Court hears a challenge to legislation's constitutionality the Court presumes  it is constitutional unless it is facially, glaringly unconstitutional.

This presumption comports  with the "cardinal principle of statutory construction [which] is to save and not to destroy."

Lochner v. New York (1905)

But it is equally true -- indeed, the public interests imperatively demand -- that legislative enactments should be recognized and enforced by the courts as embodying the will of the people unless they are plainly and palpably, beyond all question, in violation of the fundamental law of the Constitution. Justice Harlan (Dissent)



National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937)


 The cardinal principle of statutory construction is to save, and not to destroy. We have repeatedly held that, as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act. Even to avoid a serious doubt, the rule is the same. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

[jim555]

ACA is done. Cooked. Gone. Now if Biden gets elected and gets a Senate majority, there's a small chance they'll abolish the filibuster and redo it or something similar, but I don't put much hope in it. He'll try to be bipartisan and the Republicans will run the clock on that for 2 years hoping to retake one of the chambers. For all the BS republican propaganda that he's somehow a socialist, he's really just an institutionalist. So don't count on him expanding the court to 13 justices or adding states or pushing Schumer to abolish the filibuster. And that's assuming he wins and the Dems retake the Senate. If both those things don't happen, look for the ACA to be gone/gutted with no replacement and those with pre-existing conditions to be SOL. Gotten Covid? That's a pre-existing condition. Sorry. Overweight, gotten a skin cancer removed, had a cyst removed during your colonoscopy when you turned 50? Congrats, you're now uninsurable until you turn 65.

How anyone in the American fire community can support Republicans is baffling to me.

I doubt the ACA is going anywhere.  The case is weak and even if they agree they are not striking the gigantic ACA, that's a hornets nest of trouble.  Repubs are a lot of talk, but they know doing such a thing will hurt them tons, and they aren't stupid.

[Luck12]

Fuck anyone who's still a Trump/Republican supporter.  If you are one chances are 100% you think at least one of the following things:

Fuck people who can't afford healthcare.  Let them die or go bankrupt.

Fuck you if you came to the US as an undocumented child.  Go back to Mexico!

You can extort any country to give an edge to Republicans.  Trump is the president, he can do whatever he wants.

I don't care about democracy and won't respect the election results if Republicans lose.

Gays are disgusting, they should not get to be married and should be able to be discriminated against because they are gay.

IMO if you're a Republican supporter at this point I consider you a sociopath and a flat out disgusting piece of trash human being.  I don't help anyone or keep in contact with anyone who is one.

I know I'm being harsh but no a lot less harsh than their disgusting beliefs.



MOD NOTE: Not helpful, or appropriate for these forums. Go high, please.

[Laserjet3051]

Fuck anyone who's still a Trump/Republican supporter.  If you are one chances are 100% you think at least one of the following things:

Fuck people who can't afford healthcare.  Let them die or go bankrupt.

Fuck you if you came to the US as an undocumented child.  Go back to Mexico!

You can extort any country to give an edge to Republicans.  Trump is the president, he can do whatever he wants.

I don't care about democracy and won't respect the election results if Republicans lose.

Gays are disgusting, they should not get to be married and should be able to be discriminated against because they are gay.

IMO if you're a Republican supporter at this point I consider you a sociopath and a flat out disgusting piece of trash human being.  I don't help anyone or keep in contact with anyone who is one.

I know I'm being harsh but no a lot less harsh than their disgusting beliefs.

Isn't there a local riot you should be attending now? Get out and spread some of that love, dear.

[maizefolk]

IMO if you're a Republican supporter at this point I consider you a sociopath and a flat out disgusting piece of trash human being.  I don't help anyone or keep in contact with anyone who is one.

I know I'm being harsh but no a lot less harsh than their disgusting beliefs.

[Paul der Krake]

Can this thread not turn into the comment section of Yahoo News please? Drivel that’s been repeated over a million times isn’t helpful, clever, or valuable.

[bacchi]

I believe scotusblog suggested that there could be a severability for states. That is, those states that don't want it, similar to the expansion, can get rid of it.

If the subsidies remain, that could really affect migration among the states.

[seattlecyclone]

I believe scotusblog suggested that there could be a severability for states. That is, those states that don't want it, similar to the expansion, can get rid of it.

Strange idea. I guess if you're a state legislator who wants to take away a bunch of federal cash from your state's citizens for basically nothing in return, go nuts. Even the Medicaid expansion, which the state has to pay a bunch of money to adopt, has caught on in a bunch of red states.

[jim555]

I believe scotusblog suggested that there could be a severability for states. That is, those states that don't want it, similar to the expansion, can get rid of it.

Strange idea. I guess if you're a state legislator who wants to take away a bunch of federal cash from your state's citizens for basically nothing in return, go nuts. Even the Medicaid expansion, which the state has to pay a bunch of money to adopt, has caught on in a bunch of red states.

The states pay 10% of the Medicaid expansion.  When savings from other places due to the expansion is factored in it is almost free.  It is basically free money, and foolishness not to take it.

[Monkey Uncle]

I believe scotusblog suggested that there could be a severability for states. That is, those states that don't want it, similar to the expansion, can get rid of it.

Strange idea. I guess if you're a state legislator who wants to take away a bunch of federal cash from your state's citizens for basically nothing in return, go nuts. Even the Medicaid expansion, which the state has to pay a bunch of money to adopt, has caught on in a bunch of red states.

Our nutjob tea party AG is one of the ringleaders of the suit, despite the fact that 10% of the state's population is insured by expanded medicaid or other ACA plans.  He doesn't give a shit about us because he knows we are vastly outnumbered by unthinking Trump supporters.

[maizefolk]

I believe scotusblog suggested that there could be a severability for states. That is, those states that don't want it, similar to the expansion, can get rid of it.

Strange idea. I guess if you're a state legislator who wants to take away a bunch of federal cash from your state's citizens for basically nothing in return, go nuts. Even the Medicaid expansion, which the state has to pay a bunch of money to adopt, has caught on in a bunch of red states.

Our nutjob tea party AG is one of the ringleaders of the suit, despite the fact that 10% of the state's population is insured by expanded medicaid or other ACA plans.  He doesn't give a shit about us because he knows we are vastly outnumbered by unthinking Trump supporters.

At think in at least some states red the medicaid expansion was secured by referenda rather than the state legislature. Really does suggest the bill is more popular with voters even in those states than their state governments assume.

It also makes me wonder if the ACA ends up severed on a state by state level, would a previously passed referendum requiring the state to participate in the medicaid expansion prevent the state legislature from being able to pull out of the ACA entirely?

[Monkey Uncle]

I believe scotusblog suggested that there could be a severability for states. That is, those states that don't want it, similar to the expansion, can get rid of it.

Strange idea. I guess if you're a state legislator who wants to take away a bunch of federal cash from your state's citizens for basically nothing in return, go nuts. Even the Medicaid expansion, which the state has to pay a bunch of money to adopt, has caught on in a bunch of red states.

Our nutjob tea party AG is one of the ringleaders of the suit, despite the fact that 10% of the state's population is insured by expanded medicaid or other ACA plans.  He doesn't give a shit about us because he knows we are vastly outnumbered by unthinking Trump supporters.

At think in at least some states red the medicaid expansion was secured by referenda rather than the state legislature. Really does suggest the bill is more popular with voters even in those states than their state governments assume.

It also makes me wonder if the ACA ends up severed on a state by state level, would a previously passed referendum requiring the state to participate in the medicaid expansion prevent the state legislature from being able to pull out of the ACA entirely?

The medicaid expansion in WV was one of the Democrats' last gasps before they lost control of the legislature.  So it's difficult to get a read on just how popular the medicaid expansion is with voters.  However, Mr. Nutjob AG lost his race for U.S. Senate in 2018.  The Democratic incumbent (Manchin) hammered him mercilessly on his role in the ACA suit, claiming that if the suit were to succeed, 800,000 West Virginians (45% of the population) would lose their health insurance due to pre-existing conditions and loss of the medicaid expansion and ACA exchange.  The fact that a Democrat was able to employ the issue effectively in a state that has turned bright red over the last decade suggests that such personal pocketbook issues still have the ability to trump (pun intended) mindless fealty to party ideology.  Of course the picture is complicated by the fact that Manchin is probably the most conservative Democrat left in Congress.

[maizefolk]

No probably about it, I'd say Manchin certainly is the most conservative democratic senator. If the democrats do retake the senate I certainly hope they do so with one or more votes to spare so that Joe isn't constantly crushed by being the deciding vote on legislation.

I hadn't realized the ACA lawsuit was such a big issue in 2018. After reading your post I found out Manchin even reprised his 2010 campaign ad where he shot a copy of the cap and trade bill this time shooting the lawsuit to end the ACA.* I also find that reassuring.

Went and looked it up. The six states which expanded medicaid coverage based on a popular vote (ballot initiative) are Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Maine. So this would also seem to argue the voters in even ruby red states want the ACA.

*He also swapped out a rifle for a shotgun, but I don't know what political message to read into that part.

[American GenX]

ACA is done. Cooked. Gone. Now if Biden gets elected and gets a Senate majority, there's a small chance they'll abolish the filibuster and redo it or something similar, but I don't put much hope in it. He'll try to be bipartisan and the Republicans will run the clock on that for 2 years hoping to retake one of the chambers. For all the BS republican propaganda that he's somehow a socialist, he's really just an institutionalist. So don't count on him expanding the court to 13 justices or adding states or pushing Schumer to abolish the filibuster. And that's assuming he wins and the Dems retake the Senate. If both those things don't happen, look for the ACA to be gone/gutted with no replacement and those with pre-existing conditions to be SOL. Gotten Covid? That's a pre-existing condition. Sorry. Overweight, gotten a skin cancer removed, had a cyst removed during your colonoscopy when you turned 50? Congrats, you're now uninsurable until you turn 65.

How anyone in the American fire community can support Republicans is baffling to me.

I doubt the ACA is going anywhere.  The case is weak and even if they agree they are not striking the gigantic ACA, that's a hornets nest of trouble.  Repubs are a lot of talk, but they know doing such a thing will hurt them tons, and they aren't stupid.

It's too late for that.  The case will be heard by SCOTUS in November.  It's not a legislative action by republicans that's going to cause the ACA to be overturned, but there is a chance legislative action by democrats after the election could save it if the stars line up correctly.

It looks like the new justice will be Amy Barrett.  Regarding the ACA she wrote: "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."

She went on to state she "vehemently objects to the idea that a commitment to judicial restraint—understood as deference to democratic majorities—can justify a judicial refusal to interpret the law as written."

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-aca-1533764

[Monkey Uncle]

No probably about it, I'd say Manchin certainly is the most conservative democratic senator. If the democrats do retake the senate I certainly hope they do so with one or more votes to spare so that Joe isn't constantly crushed by being the deciding vote on legislation.

I'm not sure he would mind.  I met with him a couple of years ago (on an unrelated issue).  He described his role as basically being the Republican's filibuster tester.  When they were about to propose a piece of legislation, they would come to him and ask if he would vote for it.  If he said no, they would drop the bill because they knew they would not get enough Democratic support to survive a filibuster.  He seemed to relish that power.

[Monkey Uncle]

ACA is done. Cooked. Gone. Now if Biden gets elected and gets a Senate majority, there's a small chance they'll abolish the filibuster and redo it or something similar, but I don't put much hope in it. He'll try to be bipartisan and the Republicans will run the clock on that for 2 years hoping to retake one of the chambers. For all the BS republican propaganda that he's somehow a socialist, he's really just an institutionalist. So don't count on him expanding the court to 13 justices or adding states or pushing Schumer to abolish the filibuster. And that's assuming he wins and the Dems retake the Senate. If both those things don't happen, look for the ACA to be gone/gutted with no replacement and those with pre-existing conditions to be SOL. Gotten Covid? That's a pre-existing condition. Sorry. Overweight, gotten a skin cancer removed, had a cyst removed during your colonoscopy when you turned 50? Congrats, you're now uninsurable until you turn 65.

How anyone in the American fire community can support Republicans is baffling to me.

I doubt the ACA is going anywhere.  The case is weak and even if they agree they are not striking the gigantic ACA, that's a hornets nest of trouble.  Repubs are a lot of talk, but they know doing such a thing will hurt them tons, and they aren't stupid.

It's too late for that.  The case will be heard by SCOTUS in November.  It's not a legislative action by republicans that's going to cause the ACA to be overturned, but there is a chance legislative action by democrats after the election could save it if the stars line up correctly.

It looks like the new justice will be Amy Barrett.  Regarding the ACA she wrote: "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."

She went on to state she "vehemently objects to the idea that a commitment to judicial restraint—understood as deference to democratic majorities—can justify a judicial refusal to interpret the law as written."

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-aca-1533764

While it is true that things have just gotten a lot harder for the ACA, I think you're ignoring other possibilities that are far from being out of the question.  The most important one being that there might already be 5 votes on the court for severing the tax penalty.  Another possibility that I think shouldn't be ruled out is that the Dems take your Barrett quote above and use it to beat the crap out of the handful of moderate Senate Republicans so that the nomination fails.

[GuitarStv]

ACA is done. Cooked. Gone. Now if Biden gets elected and gets a Senate majority, there's a small chance they'll abolish the filibuster and redo it or something similar, but I don't put much hope in it. He'll try to be bipartisan and the Republicans will run the clock on that for 2 years hoping to retake one of the chambers. For all the BS republican propaganda that he's somehow a socialist, he's really just an institutionalist. So don't count on him expanding the court to 13 justices or adding states or pushing Schumer to abolish the filibuster. And that's assuming he wins and the Dems retake the Senate. If both those things don't happen, look for the ACA to be gone/gutted with no replacement and those with pre-existing conditions to be SOL. Gotten Covid? That's a pre-existing condition. Sorry. Overweight, gotten a skin cancer removed, had a cyst removed during your colonoscopy when you turned 50? Congrats, you're now uninsurable until you turn 65.

How anyone in the American fire community can support Republicans is baffling to me.

I doubt the ACA is going anywhere.  The case is weak and even if they agree they are not striking the gigantic ACA, that's a hornets nest of trouble.  Repubs are a lot of talk, but they know doing such a thing will hurt them tons, and they aren't stupid.

It's too late for that.  The case will be heard by SCOTUS in November.  It's not a legislative action by republicans that's going to cause the ACA to be overturned, but there is a chance legislative action by democrats after the election could save it if the stars line up correctly.

It looks like the new justice will be Amy Barrett.  Regarding the ACA she wrote: "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."

She went on to state she "vehemently objects to the idea that a commitment to judicial restraint—understood as deference to democratic majorities—can justify a judicial refusal to interpret the law as written."

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-aca-1533764

While it is true that things have just gotten a lot harder for the ACA, I think you're ignoring other possibilities that are far from being out of the question.  The most important one being that there might already be 5 votes on the court for severing the tax penalty.  Another possibility that I think shouldn't be ruled out is that the Dems take your Barrett quote above and use it to beat the crap out of the handful of moderate Senate Republicans so that the nomination fails.

Republicans opposing Trump?  Openly?  Lovely idea.  I wouldn't hold my breath though, based on every other instance of Trump's presidency.

[maizefolk]

Collins and Murkowski are already opposed to Trump nominating anyone on principle this close to the election. None of the other usual actors are. However, I hadn't realized Barrett was explicitly on record as disagreeing with the decision not to strike down the ACA. That might provide an avenue to go after Gardner in Colorado or Tillis in North Carolina, where the ACA is quite popular. Or it might even allow Romney to come out against her by saying he agrees with Trump's freedom to nominate someone to the Supreme Court but disagrees with a nominee who has said she wants to strike down the ACA (which was adopted in Utah by a popular referendum).

I still think she'll likely get confirmed, but McConnell can only afford to lose one more vote before the wheels come off. It is at least possible this doesn't go through.

[Psychstache]

ACA is done. Cooked. Gone. Now if Biden gets elected and gets a Senate majority, there's a small chance they'll abolish the filibuster and redo it or something similar, but I don't put much hope in it. He'll try to be bipartisan and the Republicans will run the clock on that for 2 years hoping to retake one of the chambers. For all the BS republican propaganda that he's somehow a socialist, he's really just an institutionalist. So don't count on him expanding the court to 13 justices or adding states or pushing Schumer to abolish the filibuster. And that's assuming he wins and the Dems retake the Senate. If both those things don't happen, look for the ACA to be gone/gutted with no replacement and those with pre-existing conditions to be SOL. Gotten Covid? That's a pre-existing condition. Sorry. Overweight, gotten a skin cancer removed, had a cyst removed during your colonoscopy when you turned 50? Congrats, you're now uninsurable until you turn 65.

How anyone in the American fire community can support Republicans is baffling to me.

I doubt the ACA is going anywhere.  The case is weak and even if they agree they are not striking the gigantic ACA, that's a hornets nest of trouble.  Repubs are a lot of talk, but they know doing such a thing will hurt them tons, and they aren't stupid.

It's too late for that.  The case will be heard by SCOTUS in November.  It's not a legislative action by republicans that's going to cause the ACA to be overturned, but there is a chance legislative action by democrats after the election could save it if the stars line up correctly.

It looks like the new justice will be Amy Barrett.  Regarding the ACA she wrote: "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."

She went on to state she "vehemently objects to the idea that a commitment to judicial restraint—understood as deference to democratic majorities—can justify a judicial refusal to interpret the law as written."

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-aca-1533764

While it is true that things have just gotten a lot harder for the ACA, I think you're ignoring other possibilities that are far from being out of the question.  The most important one being that there might already be 5 votes on the court for severing the tax penalty.  Another possibility that I think shouldn't be ruled out is that the Dems take your Barrett quote above and use it to beat the crap out of the handful of moderate Senate Republicans so that the nomination fails.

Republicans opposing Trump?  Openly?  Lovely idea.  I wouldn't hold my breath though, based on every other instance of Trump's presidency.

The one angle I can see for opposition is a senator who is on the ballot in November. It's too late to be 'primaried' by a trump loyalist, and diehard republicans aren't going to vote for someone with a D next to your name. Since you won't be on the ballot for another 6 years, trump will be out of office (assuming democracy makes it that far) and a 6 year old vote will be largely forgotten.

I still don't think it is likely, but that is a theoretical pathway to republican senatorial defiance.

[John Galt incarnate!]

It's too late for that.  The case will be heard by SCOTUS in November.  It's not a legislative action by republicans that's going to cause the ACA to be overturned, but there is a chance legislative action by democrats after the election could save it if the stars line up correctly.

It looks like the new justice will be Amy Barrett.  Regarding the ACA she wrote: "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."

She went on to state she "vehemently objects to the idea that a commitment to judicial restraint—understood as deference to democratic majorities—can justify a judicial refusal to interpret the law as written."

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-aca-1533764
[/quote]

The fiery ACB (just like Scalia) is precisely right; Roberts did  craft the majority opinion he did to "save the statute."

But that does not mean that there were no other constitutional bases for the opinion.

That part of Roberts'  rationale is squarely consonant with Harlan's  dissent in Lochner and C.J.  Hughes' majority opinion in National Labor Relations Board, each an exhortation of judicial restraint.

The debatable  issue  is this: Was the ACA Court activist by upholding the ACA or would it have been activist had it struck down the ACA?

Is the Court activist or not  when it  "rewrites" a statute or formulates a strained construction  of it so that it passes constitutional muster?

 Justice Kennedy's quip comes to mind: An activist Court is a Court that issues an opinion you don't like.

[WhiteTrashCash]

The USA has already entered pitchforks and torches territory (as we can see from cities being set on fire recently) and the new Supreme Court justice is just going to exacerbate the situation. The will of the people is not being heard even slightly when it comes to the ACA or pretty much any other actions being made by the government recently. When the majority are ruled by the minority, that is usually referred to as tyranny and historically Americans have had certain energetic ways of dealing with tyrants. Not trying to be hyperbolic here, but we are heading into a very bad situation in this country.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I'm really not sure what folks think that the counter-balance is to the ACA being overturned in November.  This is the most important thing that the Republicans want to accomplish whether Trump wins or not.  The ACA being quashed is modern-day Republicans trying to argue against Social Security or the New Deal - FDR cemented a Democratic advantage for decades with these.  Obama would do the same unless ACA is killed right after his final term. 

So here we are.  I'm actually surprised how weak the onslaught has been against the ACA (it has been relentless, but superficial), but Republicans apparently have finally found the final piece to undo the Democrats signature piece of modern legislation - never to return again in my lifetime.  Older folks might be the only ones who will remember just how incredible it was that national health insurance legislation saw the light of day...

And, after this coronavirus, this is a very profitable piece of legislation - pre-existing conditions and all - to kill.  The American Health Insurance Industry depends on this being overturned.

Everyday American citizens should be terrified that healthcare will again be subject to pre-existing conditions and employment, but folks don't seen to grasp this complicated nuance.  I guess, when it's too late, it'll make sense to them.

[GuitarStv]

I'm really not sure what folks think that the counter-balance is to the ACA being overturned in November.  This is the most important thing that the Republicans want to accomplish whether Trump wins or not.  The ACA being quashed is modern-day Republicans trying to argue against Social Security or the New Deal - FDR cemented a Democratic advantage for decades with these.  Obama would do the same unless ACA is killed right after his final term. 

So here we are.  I'm actually surprised how weak the onslaught has been against the ACA (it has been relentless, but superficial), but Republicans apparently have finally found the final piece to undo the Democrats signature piece of modern legislation - never to return again in my lifetime.  Older folks might be the only ones who will remember just how incredible it was that national health insurance legislation saw the light of day...

And, after this coronavirus, this is a very profitable piece of legislation - pre-existing conditions and all - to kill.  The American Health Insurance Industry depends on this being overturned.

Everyday American citizens should be terrified that healthcare will again be subject to pre-existing conditions and employment, but folks don't seen to grasp this complicated nuance.  I guess, when it's too late, it'll make sense to them.

But . . . freedom!  People should be free to be gouged by a private industry for the basic human right of health care.  Any other argument makes you a dirty commie.

[Exflyboy]

Don't forget the "freedom" to choose .. Between food and healthcare!

Well worse case we probably have the ACA for 2021 and possibly 2022. We have even started talking about where else in the World we might want to live.

[jim555]

Remember if Biden wins and we get at least a 50/50 Senate any damage they do can be undone.

[WhiteTrashCash]

The only real positive that could come out of this situation is that the Democrats might finally give up on compromise solutions like the ACA and just institute single-payer Universal Healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. The ACA was always meant to be a stepping stone to Universal Healthcare and Biden was running on a promise to institute the public option that was excised during negotiations in 2010.

[jim555]

The only real positive that could come out of this situation is that the Democrats might finally give up on compromise solutions like the ACA and just institute single-payer Universal Healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. The ACA was always meant to be a stepping stone to Universal Healthcare and Biden was running on a promise to institute the public option that was excised during negotiations in 2010.

There isn't support for such a plan in the US, it isn't going anywhere.

[jim555]

Is there a model that works for both major parties?

Don't know what you mean.

[joleran]

The only real positive that could come out of this situation is that the Democrats might finally give up on compromise solutions like the ACA and just institute single-payer Universal Healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. The ACA was always meant to be a stepping stone to Universal Healthcare and Biden was running on a promise to institute the public option that was excised during negotiations in 2010.

There isn't support for such a plan in the US, it isn't going anywhere.

Public option could certainly get a lot of support if marketed correctly, universal mandatory single-payer not so much.  The entire argument against single-payer is that the government is inefficient and will suck at it, so in order to be vaguely palatable the insurance companies will need to be able to compete.

[pecunia]

The only real positive that could come out of this situation is that the Democrats might finally give up on compromise solutions like the ACA and just institute single-payer Universal Healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. The ACA was always meant to be a stepping stone to Universal Healthcare and Biden was running on a promise to institute the public option that was excised during negotiations in 2010.

There isn't support for such a plan in the US, it isn't going anywhere.

Public option could certainly get a lot of support if marketed correctly, universal mandatory single-payer not so much.  The entire argument against single-payer is that the government is inefficient and will suck at it, so in order to be vaguely palatable the insurance companies will need to be able to compete.

Why would our government suck at it when the governments of other countries do not?

This is an example of the propaganda that has been fed to the American people.

A few weeks ago, I saw a PBS show about obtaining the vote for women.  It was an example that the only way to get a major positive change is to get out in the street and fight for it.

[sherr]

The only real positive that could come out of this situation is that the Democrats might finally give up on compromise solutions like the ACA and just institute single-payer Universal Healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. The ACA was always meant to be a stepping stone to Universal Healthcare and Biden was running on a promise to institute the public option that was excised during negotiations in 2010.

There isn't support for such a plan in the US, it isn't going anywhere.

"Universal Health Coverage" polls at 63% for, 31% against.
"Medicare-for-all" polls at 63:34.
"National heath plan" polls at 59:36.
"Single-payer Insurance" polls at 49:32.
Even "Socialized medicine" polls at 46:44, which is still positive.

Source.

[jim555]

The candidate advocating such a plan could only get 30% of the Democrats, the plan is DOA.  Reality is reality.

[WhiteTrashCash]

The candidate advocating such a plan could only get 30% of the Democrats, the plan is DOA.  Reality is reality.

Well, Bernie Sanders campaigned on giving Medicare to everybody and who wants that? Medicare sucks. It's so expensive and doesn't cover much.

[katsiki]

FWIW, keep discussing and talking about this issue with those who disagree with you.  I have changed my views on ACA over the past couple of years in part due to this discussion and similar.

[sherr]

The candidate advocating such a plan could only get 30% of the Democrats, the plan is DOA.  Reality is reality.

And this is 100% a silly take. Just because someone has one popular policy position doesn't automatically make him the most popular candidate, and just because he loses doesn't automatically make that policy position unpopular.

[jim555]

The candidate advocating such a plan could only get 30% of the Democrats, the plan is DOA.  Reality is reality.

And this is 100% a silly take. Just because someone has one populate policy position doesn't automatically make him the most popular candidate, and just because he loses doesn't automatically make that policy position unpopular.

The US is not that far left, Sanders was selling golden unicorns with no hope of ever getting any of his stuff passed, and he knows it.  Just another gifter.

[sherr]

The candidate advocating such a plan could only get 30% of the Democrats, the plan is DOA.  Reality is reality.

And this is 100% a silly take. Just because someone has one popular policy position doesn't automatically make him the most popular candidate, and just because he loses doesn't automatically make that policy position unpopular.

The US is not that far left, Sanders was selling golden unicorns with no hope of ever getting any of his stuff passed, and he knows it.  Just another gifter.

What on earth makes you think this is even a response to what I said? If you want to argue that Medicare-for-all or Single-payer is unpopular in the US, then do it with sources and numbers.

If Bernie was "selling golden unicorns with no hope of ever getting passed" as you say, like for example free college for all, then maybe that's why he lost, not because Medicare-for-all is unpopular.

[Paul der Krake]

Medicare for all is only widely popular as an abstract idea. Wars and hunger are also very unpopular, but we still have them. As soon as you get into the details of what that means, it just becomes one of those things that everybody wants but only if it’s done my way. FiveThirtyEight has done a lot of reporting on that subject. Here is one such article:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-want-the-health-care-system-to-change-just-not-their-own-health-care/

[John Galt incarnate!]

I'm really not sure what folks think that the counter-balance is to the ACA being overturned in November. 

As to his  application  of  stare decisis, Kavanaugh is quoted as saying that the underpinnings  of the precedent at issue would have to be "egregiously" or "grievously" wrong.

In 1932 Justice Brandeis said it is “more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right."

Brandeis' reasoning  also applies to precedents.

[American GenX]

Remember if Biden wins and we get at least a 50/50 Senate any damage they do can be undone.

That's what I was referring to in my response to you, "but there is a chance legislative action by democrats after the election could save it if the stars line up correctly."

Hopefully, the ACA can be saved.  These Universal Healthcare fantasies are not going to happen with the current support in Congress.  There's way too far too go.   Maybe Biden's public option could gain traction.