Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   How Obama can still save Obamacare, by being the dictator that he is and creating a workaround of the law   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 59
    More: Interesting, White House, obamacare, hhs secretary, United States courts of appeals  
•       •       •

896 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jul 2014 at 12:26 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-23 02:34:54 PM  
If I was Obama I would do this:

Ok lets pass a bill with a handful of Obamacare fixes AND will let states OPT OUT if they vote too. (but still pay taxes just not get the benefits).

Let see Republicans vote for kicking thousands off their insurance. I think some will but I bet you it would be very bloody.

But I don't know if there is enough fixes needed to be made yet to call for this but it would be a great bargaining chip.
 
2014-07-23 02:47:39 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Ignoring laws has never been one of Odumbo's problems.  I predict great success.


dumb? i thought he was a machiavellian tyrant.

i do know that no matter what, he'll still be black...
 
2014-07-23 02:47:44 PM  

Corvus: If I was Obama I would do this:

Ok lets pass a bill with a handful of Obamacare fixes AND will let states OPT OUT if they vote too. (but still pay taxes just not get the benefits).

Let see Republicans vote for kicking thousands off their insurance. I think some will but I bet you it would be very bloody.

But I don't know if there is enough fixes needed to be made yet to call for this but it would be a great bargaining chip.


Now why would he actually sign that?

Or is this a trap for them?
 
2014-07-23 03:02:00 PM  

meat0918: Corvus: If I was Obama I would do this:

Ok lets pass a bill with a handful of Obamacare fixes AND will let states OPT OUT if they vote too. (but still pay taxes just not get the benefits).

Let see Republicans vote for kicking thousands off their insurance. I think some will but I bet you it would be very bloody.

But I don't know if there is enough fixes needed to be made yet to call for this but it would be a great bargaining chip.

Now why would he actually sign that?

Or is this a trap for them?


Why not both?

A) It would be a way to actually get some changes passed to the ACA if needed.
B) Would actually be a political bomb for republicans in their state.

It would force them to put up or shut up. Right now they can take 100 votes on repealing Obamacare because they know it won't pass. But when they can pass it and people take it serious that thousands would lose the health insurance they have now they would start getting cold feet.

You would just have to make it so you lose EVERYTHING- no transition. People just get dumped if their state passes it.
 
2014-07-23 03:37:30 PM  

void-dweller: meat0918: FTFA:

"States could continue using HealthCare.gov but pass a bill or otherwise indicate that the website functions as their state-based insurance exchange. Creating a website from scratch had been one of the biggest impediments to states creating their own exchanges. :"

Um, why the fark would they need to pass a bill.  They ARE USING IT AS THEIR STATE-BASED EXCHANGE!

Because ACA oppenents are latching on the very narrow reading of the law in the phase "Exchanges established by the States". They are arguing the Exchanges setup by the Feds aren't "Established by the State". The article talks about idea of the States basically delegating the establishing their Exchanges to the HHS. The same idea occurred to be yesterday. Basically a rules change to allow it explicitly. And the States taking some action which says that HHS is authorized to run the State's exchange. Yeah, yeah I know but the idea seems to obvious that it didn't need mentioning. And the article proved me right on that.

But the ACA can be read as there being no differences in the Exchanges.

42 U.S. Code Section 18031 (b)(1):

Each State shall...establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an "Exchange") for the State that-

42 U.S. Code Section 18031 (d)(1):

An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

So the Act defines what an terms "Exchange" means are used by the ACA.

42 U.S. Code Section 18041:
(c) Failure to establish Exchange or implement requirements
(1) In general
If-
(A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b);

 the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

So basically you can read it as "if a State elected not to establish an "Exchange established by the State" (18031(b)(1),(d)(1)), but if they don't the Secretary of HHS will establish "such Exchange (established by the State)" (18031(b)(1),(d)(1))." Remember 18031(b)(1),(d)(1))  defines what "Exchange" means in in the ACA.


I think the operative word is 'within'

On reading that it is saying the Fed establishes the exchanges within the states that opt to not create an exchange.

It also says that HHS is establishing 'such exchanges' making it a state level exchange even though accomplished from a federal level.

So, the Fed is establishing state level agencies? I'm not completely familiar with your country's separation of powers rules and exceptions. Can they do that? What else does that there?
 
2014-07-23 04:00:43 PM  

Discordulator: void-dweller

: [sni]

I think the operative word is 'within'
On reading that it is saying the Fed establishes the exchanges within the states that opt to not create an exchange.
It also says that HHS is establishing 'such exchanges' making it a state level exchange even though accomplished from a federal level.
So, the Fed is establishing state level agencies? I'm not completely familiar with your country's separation of powers rules and exceptions. Can they do that? What else does that there?


Yes. The Federal government can do such things in this case. There is other subsection that I didn't post that say that the Exchanges that HHS sets up cannot preempt any applicable State laws which don't interfere with the ACA. Which means the State can still regulate insurance providers, can determine which providers can and cannot appear on the State's Exchange, etc.

U.S. Code Section 18041:

(d) No interference with State regulatory authority
Nothing in this title shall be construed to preempt any State law that does not prevent the application of the provisions of this title.
 
2014-07-23 05:57:13 PM  
Republicans continue their ceaseless attack against the United States.
 
2014-07-24 06:24:30 AM  
...there's absolutely no need to create a workaround for Halbig. I would be legitimately shocked if we got another <i>Hobby Lobby</i> - which was only really as bad as it was because (1) none of the 9 Supremes have any experience with corporate law, and (2) the opinion was written by Alito.

I think (1) might have something to do with (2), too.
 
2014-07-24 06:25:17 AM  

ib_thinkin: <i>Hobby Lobby</i>


Dammit. FailTML.
 
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report