Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: possible outcomes of King vs Burwell rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If the SC rules on the side of precedent then things will continue on largely unchanged. Let's then assume for the sake of discussion the SC does not and rules that the subsidies do not apply. In that case what are the likely plans and possabilities going forward. Please let us leave pithy remarks like 'we get our freedom back' or 'the GOP murders thousands' out of the discussion. Practically, what can federal lawmakers do, what can local lawmakers do, what can,insurance companies do. And what *will* be done by each of these parties, in your best estimates? There's no current 'net' in place or proposed by any group should the ruling nix subsidies. So this does have some merit for discussion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the only solution that would exist is Congress acting to specifically extend subsidies to those states where the federal government became responsible for establishing the exchanges. But I doubt that they would take that step - they'd be more likely to push for a repeal on the grounds that the mandates remained but the subsidies were gone.

States could pass subsidies individually, but I doubt they have the funds to afford that and many of them wouldn't have the political motivation to do so - they didn't establish exchanges to reinforce political positioning as much as they passed due to the cost or complexity.

But if the subsidies go, there will be a pretty enormous squeeze put on those receiving them. If they won't qualify for the "too expensive" exemption, either the HHS or Congress will need to do something to alleviate the financial pressures. And that's before considering whether or not they really have conditions where the insurance is providing them immediate, significant benefits in the form of treatment.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Perhaps the States using the Federal Exchange could pass a law stating that their Exchange is a State Exchange with the Feds just being the technology provider. If that were a viable solution (it's probably not as that's too easy) it would at least put pressure on the State governments that *might* be swayed by the best interests of their residents. But looking at the states that refused to setup their own exchange, i.e. Texas, that's not very likely.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can't wait to see how Scalia rules on this. I think it might just cause him to twist into a knot if he rules against the Federal Exchanges.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris R.
United States
Unspecified
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Justice Anthony Kennedy sent a ripple through the universe of court watchers Monday when he told lawmakers that the justices should interpret statutes without worrying about congressional gridlock.

"We routinely decide cases involving federal statutes, and we say, 'Well, if this is wrong, the Congress will fix it.' But then we hear that Congress can't pass a bill one way or another, that there is gridlock.

Some people say that should affect the way we interpret the statutes. That seems to me a wrong proposition. We have to assume that we have three fully-functioning branches of the government."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/justic...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sikeospi wrote:
Justice Anthony Kennedy sent a ripple through the universe of court watchers Monday when he told lawmakers ... "We have to assume that we have three fully-functioning branches of the government."

That guy is a complete nutter and should be removed from the bench if he actually believes congress is a functioning branch of government right now...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walker
United States
Birmingham
Alabama
flag msg tools
"The significance of a person's life is determined by the story they believe themselves to be in." - Wendell Berry "If nothing lies beyond the pale of death, then nothing of value lies before it." - SMBC
badge
Thy mercy, my God, is the theme of my song, the joy of my heart and the boast of my tongue. Thy free grace alone, from the first to the last, has won my affection and bound my soul fast.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Elfbane wrote:
sikeospi wrote:
Justice Anthony Kennedy sent a ripple through the universe of court watchers Monday when he told lawmakers ... "We have to assume that we have three fully-functioning branches of the government."

That guy is a complete nutter and should be removed from the bench if he actually believes congress is a functioning branch of government right now...


I think his point is sound, though: the duty of the Court is to apply the law (or, in some cases, the higher law of moral principles) correctly and not worry about congressional gridlock.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris R.
United States
Unspecified
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Elfbane wrote:
sikeospi wrote:
Justice Anthony Kennedy sent a ripple through the universe of court watchers Monday when he told lawmakers ... "We have to assume that we have three fully-functioning branches of the government."

That guy is a complete nutter and should be removed from the bench if he actually believes congress is a functioning branch of government right now...


Congress works just great right now.


BJ, is the above person saying that the executive branch works?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dick waving aside both branches are working. Depts. Of the government keep funtioning in the executive and spending bills keep passing and debate keeps happening in the legislative.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't think it's very likely the government will lose. I think it will be 6-3 to uphold the current interpretation of the law.

If the government does lose, I think it's not unlikely that the Supreme Court might rule in such a way that the effects are deferred or otherwise mitigated, so that millions of people don't lose their insurance subsidies overnight.

If they lose and the ruling takes immediate effect, then there will be significant pressure on Congress to produce some kind of temporary solution to delay the effects for people who are currently receiving subsidies. This will be a clusterfuck as the Republican caucus in the House accepts the idea in principle but requires all sorts of bizarre riders in the bill that have nothing to do with the matter because they see this as their chance to put something over on Obama.

It will be a mess that will go on for weeks (at least). Think back to government shutdown, threatened default over debt limit increase, etc. It will look like that again.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.