The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

So, can somebody educate me on what this will do for myself.

24
Single
Student (For 2 1/2 more years)
On university health insurance, mediocre.
Single mom, low class, on disability.

Did I hit the key points?

You have health care insurance, so in essence this does absolutely nothing for or to you in particular. it may inf act give you far broader access to better health care plans based on your income level.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Let's be serious. Those tools in Washington don't read a thing of what they pass. Anyone claiming they didn't have enough time to is probably trolling.

But that doesn't matter most of the time. No one is going to be an expert in highway appropriations, healthcare, defense spending priorities, port regulation, etc., etc.

What we should expect is to have members briefed by competent staff on the issues, but just because few people read the full text of bills isn't a reason to excoriate Congress. (There are plenty of good reasons for excoriating them.)

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What would you advocate?

The payment boards have great potential to lower costs. Broadening the pool of insured can lower costs. The focus on digital records can lower costs. There are a number of ideas in the bill with the potential to lower costs. There aren't any guarantees, but the only way you can guarantee lowering costs is to lower payments for providers or limit access, neither of which are politically feasible for either party.

I just don't think it's attacking the real costs of health care. Technology, doctors, education/training, drugs (both buying and researching them), staffing, insurance, building costs, utilities, are all expense, and as we demand better treatments and research, it's going to progressively increase in terms of cost. You might be able to nip at rate that costs are increasing, but I don't see them staying flat or going down.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by RendeR

You have health care insurance, so in essence this does absolutely nothing for or to you in particular. it may inf act give you far broader access to better health care plans based on your income level.

Yea, I stumbled across a link to the Kaiser Family Foundation that seems to have some pretty good information. Need to educate myself. Better late than never.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I just don't think it's attacking the real costs of health care. Technology, doctors, education/training, drugs (both buying and researching them), staffing, insurance, building costs, utilities, are all expense, and as we demand better treatments and research, it's going to progressively increase in terms of cost. You might be able to nip at rate that costs are increasing, but I don't see them staying flat or going down.

So what would you do?

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

All of those state universities are private? Interesting. The government forced the investment market to re-package subprime debt as an A+ instrument and over-leverage their positions? Interesting.

The fact that some of the universities are in some sense, "public" supports my point. Their status didn't stop them from taking full advantage of government backed "access" to the crap they sold. Government backed student loans and the subsequent student loan debt promote wealth disparity in this country as much as anything else. And on the second point, you're describing more the financial meltdown than the housing boom.

[cartman]

You don't think that the housing boom and the financial meltdown are inextricably linked?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Okay, but the discussion started in early March of 2009. For a bill, a year is an eternity of discussion. And this is after a year of discussion on the campaign trail.

I personally don't really hold much weight to what was discussed/promised while a candidate is trying to win an election, plus, I'm sure his original 'vision' probably looks like a distant cousin to what was signed into law.

However, something this 'big' would do well to be done carefully and if it takes two years, fine, just do it right. Instead, I fear that 4 or 5 years down the line, something is going to pop up (I have no idea what) that is going to be a big 'whoops' we didn't think about that, now we have to do a major reworking of the bill. I hope I'm wrong though, but, I think I'd have more faith in successfully navigating through a asteroid field in the Millennium Falcon than our government getting things right.

Originally Posted by bronconick

A "ramrodded" bill would be the original Patriot Act.

Introduced into 8 House subcommittees: October 23, 2001
Passes House: October 24, 2001
Passes Senate: October 25, 2001
Signed into law: October 26, 2001

Let's be serious. Those tools in Washington don't read a thing of what they pass. Anyone claiming they didn't have enough time to is probably trolling.

I totally agree with you. And look at the abomination that is the Patriot Act. This is a clear cut example of why you don't want to be too hasty on certain things.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Biggest non-shock of my life.

Jon, if you had Kennedy voting to invalidate and Roberts voting to uphold, I want to know next week's lottery numbers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

You don't think that the housing boom and the financial meltdown are inextricably linked?

One led to the other, but I'm just talking about costs. The wrong kind of government intervention caused or accelerated booms in housing and higher education costs. I think it's a reasonable fear that the wrong kind of government intervention will cause the same thing here.

Edit: The government isn't providing the services, they're trying to create greater access to a product provided by a private industry that already has a bad reputation. That's the comparison I'm drawing. This may not go well. Or maybe the legislation is masterfully drafted and will reign in the insurance companies. Time will tell.

[Galaril]

So I stopped paying attention to all this like a year ago but basically doesn't this all boil down to
Poor people are for this as they can't afford insurance so this will help them with subsidized insurance?
Rich hate it because well they can afford medical care without insurance?
Middle class people are for it as it could lower there insurance costs alittle by increasing the insurer pool of paying customers ?

Those who say they are against it because they don't want the Feds telling individuals what to spend money on is another group that spreads all the three socioeco groups of course.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I personally don't really hold much weight to what was discussed/promised while a candidate is trying to win an election, plus, I'm sure his original 'vision' probably looks like a distant cousin to what was signed into law.

However, something this 'big' would do well to be done carefully and if it takes two years, fine, just do it right.

That would work if everyone involved were working towards a common goal, but that isn't the way politics works. The longer a bill is discussed the more opportunity the opposition has to kill it or attach poison pills to it so that it can't function. The outcome after two years wouldn't be any better and would probably be worse.

Six months is plenty of time for a bill to be discussed, provided the discussions and the final product are the same. I also think there should be a reading period of a few days for most bills where the public can find out about the details. I don't think any amendments should be allowed without time for them to be public and the authors should be public.

You can't, though, build a system that relies on cooperation when that isn't going to be standard.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

So, can somebody educate me on what this will do for myself.

24
Single
Student (For 2 1/2 more years)
On university health insurance, mediocre.
Single mom, low class, on disability.

Did I hit the key points?

You're a woman?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

One led to the other, but I'm just talking about costs. The wrong kind of government intervention caused or accelerated booms in housing and higher education costs. I think it's a reasonable fear that the wrong kind of government intervention will cause the same thing here.

Edit: The government isn't providing the services, they're trying to create greater access to a product provided by a private industry that already has a bad reputation. That's the comparison I'm drawing. This may not go well. Or maybe the legislation is masterfully drafted and will reign in the insurance companies. Time will tell.

Even after the recession I would find it hard to argue that since FDR, federal housing policies have made the populace worse off. I'd argue the same for student loans, too.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems, but you can't look at only the bubble and declare failure.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Noop

You're a woman?

Thanks, I didn't have the balls to go there ... but I thought the same exact thing.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thanks, I didn't have the balls to go there ... but I thought the same exact thing.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by Noop

You're a woman?

Aha. No. I was under the impression the next question could be the mention of staying on parents health care until I'm 26, but was just explaining that that would not be an option.

[JPhillips]

Nice summary from Orin Kerr:

The individual mandate is constitutional because despite the name because it’s not really a mandate. Congress called it a mandate, to be sure, but in practice it’s really just a small tax. And the enforcement mechanism is pretty light. So you really don’t have to get health insurance: You just have to pay the smallish penalty if you decide you don’t want it. So Congress lacks the power to say that you go to jail if you don’t buy health insurance.

But Congress does have the power to encourage you to get health insurance by imposing a tax if you don’t, as long as the tax isn’t so coercive that it’s really more than just a tax... willful failure to pay the tax (that is, knowing you have to but intentionally refusing to pay your tax bill) can be a crime. But you can pay the tax and not get health insurance if that’s what you want. So the “mandate” is just a tax, and it is therefore constitutional.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thanks, I didn't have the balls to go there ... but I thought the same exact thing.

I can't believe he called his mom low class.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That would work if everyone involved were working towards a common goal, but that isn't the way politics works. The longer a bill is discussed the more opportunity the opposition has to kill it or attach poison pills to it so that it can't function. The outcome after two years wouldn't be any better and would probably be worse.

Six months is plenty of time for a bill to be discussed, provided the discussions and the final product are the same. I also think there should be a reading period of a few days for most bills where the public can find out about the details. I don't think any amendments should be allowed without time for them to be public and the authors should be public.

You can't, though, build a system that relies on cooperation when that isn't going to be standard.

I actually don't disagree with you much on that. I just think certain things need more brewing time than others. I know it's a bit of a fantasy in today's hyper polarized politicizing of everything these days to expect it, but, you would think our fearless leaders would be conscious of that instead of just keeping their eyes on when the next election is.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I give this bill/law (what I know of it) a 3. Part of it could be some misunderstanding on my part, I will admit, but, seeing how every other thing the government tries to get involved with ends up costing 10 times more than they said it would, I'd be shocked if it works as intended.

[Scoobz0202]

I hate you all

No Steam Summer Sale today, and now this. And it's 98 degrees outside.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I can't believe he called his mom low class.

Well, she does drink Busch Light when she drinks.

[JediKooter]

Someones vagina is scratchy...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Jon, if you had Kennedy voting to invalidate and Roberts voting to uphold, I want to know next week's lottery numbers.

The outcome, simply the outcome.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Someones vagina is scratchy...

But now they can go get it checked out, and not have to worry later about being denied coverage for a pre-existing scratchy vagina condition!

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Even after the recession I would find it hard to argue that since FDR, federal housing policies have made the populace worse off. I'd argue the same for student loans, too.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems, but you can't look at only the bubble and declare failure.

I'm not saying the government shouldn't ever be involved in housing or higher learning (and especially healthcare). But there's been changes since FDR. You can now borrow $200,000+ of public money to get a worthless degree and you can't discharge the debt. I don't think that was FDR's vision. Personal accountability comes into play there, but those policies impact us all in so many ways, most of all education costs which now almost ensure you start life in a deep hole unless you're rich. Housing was similar. The sensible members of the middle class were punished by the (claimed) drive for "fairness" and "access". Healthcare isn't exactly the same dynamic, and maybe this is all more FDR than Barney Frank, and I'm glad something's new out there that can either fail or succeed, we've just been burned before by government/corporate/private interest tag-teams.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Someones vagina is scratchy...

I don't think my current insurance covers that

[cartman]

The right wing blogosphere is calling for Roberts's head. Sounds like they would have been much happier with Harriet Miers.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by cartman

But now they can go get it checked out, and not have to worry later about being denied coverage for a pre-existing scratchy vagina condition!

Ah good point, very good point.

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

I don't think my current insurance covers that

I'm sure Kaiser would. If not, the good news is, you can be on your parents health care until you're 26 I think.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not saying the government shouldn't ever be involved in housing or higher learning (and especially not healthcare). But there's been changes since FDR. You can now borrow $200,000+ of public money to get a worthless degree and you can't discharge the debt. I don't think that was FDR's vision. Personal accountability comes into play there, but those policies impact us all in so many ways, most of all education costs which now almost ensure you start life in a deep whole unless you're rich. Housing was similar. The sensible members of the middle class were punished by the (claimed) drive for "fairness" and "access". Healthcare isn't exactly the same dynamic, and maybe this is all more FDR than Barney Frank, and I'm glad something's new out there that can either fail or succeed, we've just been burned before by government/corporate/private interest tag-teams.

I agree on current problems with student loans, but I still don't think that means we should have never helped students go to college. There are problems, but the net benefit has been substantial.

On housing I don't think the middle class was punished in a drive for access. Everything I have read makes it clear that default rates on those specific loans were lower than those on traditional loans. The largest group of defaulters were people in the middle class that simply spent more than they could afford(sometimes knowingly and sometimes not).

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

The right wing blogosphere is calling for Roberts's head. Sounds like they would have been much happier with Harriet Miers.

Except those who just see this a clever tactical ploy by Roberts (I've seen that angle out there too). The commerce clause is back, and enough moderates don't like Obamacare to ensure his November defeat.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Obama knows the different between state and federal, he's just pandering to those who don't. It's not inconsistent to believe in a mandate at the state level (or even as a policy at the federal level) but also believe its unconstitutional for the federal legislature to carry it out.

This is true, and I acknowledge that.

I wouldn't say it's pandering - I would say it's a shrewd political move given that Romney has yet to draw that distinction. Either a) Romney doesn't realize that, or b) Romney isn't convinced that his voter-base understands that. Either way, a win for Obama by highlighting it.

[Radii]

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This is true, and I acknowledge that.

I wouldn't say it's pandering - I would say it's a shrewd political move given that Romney has yet to draw that distinction. Either a) Romney doesn't realize that, or b) Romney isn't convinced that his voter-base understands that. Either way, a win for Obama by highlighting it.

And/or c) he knows most of his base would be against mandates at the state level as well, so he doesn't want to highlight he likes them at least in some circumstances. If you adjust your vision just enough, and depending on what he's running for, Romney is actually more moderate than the average modern Republican.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by Radii

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

Because no country on Earth says "Fuck Socialized Health Insurance" like Canada.

[RendeR]

I'm waiting for the mass exodus to Canada, shortly after which I'll be listening for the mass screaming as they realize the error of their ways.

[albionmoonlight]

Politically, I don't think that this makes much of a November difference. Probably a bit better for the President to not have the Court declare his most visible accomplishment unconstitutional. But this also gives Romney a clear message: If you don't like this law, you need to vote for me.

Policywise, I think that this is not the end of federalism as we know it. Indeed, as the guys at volokh have noted, the Commerce Clause section of the opinion is a win for federalism--and that is much more likely to have an impact going forward. That this mandate happened to also be a tax is kind of a rare occurrence.

Also, if you read J. Robert's opinion, he goes out of his way (over J. Ginsburg's objection) to hold that he HAS to reach the Commerce Clause question in order to get to the tax question. That's simply false. Any constitutional attorney can point to dozens of cases where the Court declined to reach a constitutional question in favor of deciding a case on other grounds.

So, I think that J. Roberts very carefully made sure to provide lots of ammunition for federalists in future cases.

[Grover]

@EliBraden: "UGH IM SO MAD THE REPUBLICAN-APPOINTEE-DOMINATED SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE REPUBLICAN-CREATED HEALTH CARE PLAN" - Republicans

[albionmoonlight]

oh, and this is the same Court that recently decided U.S. v. Comstock 7-2 against federalism. So I also would not read TOO much into J. Roberts's Commerce Clause opinion.

2012, for good or ill, is a much more federal world than 1789.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

Because no country on Earth says "Fuck Socialized Health Insurance" like Canada.

SI

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by Radii

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

The best part of this is that OBVIOUSLY some of these are people making a joke, but something like this is great at removing all context. Now the people on this list get to deal with moronic left-wingers mocking them because they don't understand the joke or deleting their accounts.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Except those who just see this a clever tactical ploy by Roberts (I've seen that angle out there too). The commerce clause is back, and enough moderates don't like Obamacare to ensure his November defeat.

People said this after Morrison and Lopez, but it clearly wasn't true as we saw with Raich.

[Solecismic]

I've been crunching some numbers on this, though it's hard to tell right now what insurance will cost or consist of in 2014. I believe that for most of the healthy self-employed middle class, it will be a good economic decision to pay the fine and refuse to purchase health insurance.

The question is whether the non-conforming health insurance plan I have now, which has a $10k deductible, will be legal in 2014. I think it won't - at least not at anywhere near the cost I pay right now. So I will probably drop health insurance and hope my perfect driving record holds up. And if I get cancer or something else incredibly expensive, I'll be able to purchase health insurance without a bias against the pre-existing condition.

Yes, gaming the system. But the projections for the percentage of your income this plan will cost the average self-employed member of the middle class are extraordinary. I honestly don't think this is going to work like Obama thinks it's going to work.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I've been crunching some numbers on this, though it's hard to tell right now what insurance will cost or consist of in 2014. I believe that for most of the healthy self-employed middle class, it will be a good economic decision to pay the fine and refuse to purchase health insurance.

The question is whether the non-conforming health insurance plan I have now, which has a $10k deductible, will be legal in 2014. I think it won't - at least not at anywhere near the cost I pay right now. So I will probably drop health insurance and hope my perfect driving record holds up. And if I get cancer or something else incredibly expensive, I'll be able to purchase health insurance without a bias against the pre-existing condition.

Yes, gaming the system. But the projections for the percentage of your income this plan will cost the average self-employed member of the middle class are extraordinary. I honestly don't think this is going to work like Obama thinks it's going to work.

Interesting...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

People said this after Morrison and Lopez, but it clearly wasn't true as we saw with Raich.

So, what you're saying is that if you appoint people for life and they have no true accountability, they'll do whatever the heck they please?

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

People said this after Morrison and Lopez, but it clearly wasn't true as we saw with Raich.

True, but I think Morrison and Lopez and this one today keep the discussion going, and more lower appellate courts can find teeth in commerce clause if they're inclined to find it, whereas pre-Lopez it was just dead.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, what you're saying is that if you appoint people for life and they have no true accountability, they'll do whatever the heck they please?

SI

Well that's kinda the point of the way it was set up, although it's not true that there are no checks. There is impeachment and also Congress can remove jurisdiction for SCOTUS to rule on certain issues.

I think life appointments for SCOTUS was one of the greatest ideas the founders came up with, and am completely opposed to any other format. Judges should not have to worry about whether a decision will cost them a chance at re-election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So, what you're saying is that if you appoint people for life and they have no true accountability, they'll do whatever the heck they please?

Imagine that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

The right wing blogosphere is calling for Roberts's head.

I can't say I'd be satisfied with just his head.

Hung, drawn, quartered ... now maybe that's at least a starting point.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I've been crunching some numbers on this, though it's hard to tell right now what insurance will cost or consist of in 2014. I believe that for most of the healthy self-employed middle class, it will be a good economic decision to pay the fine and refuse to purchase health insurance.

The question is whether the non-conforming health insurance plan I have now, which has a $10k deductible, will be legal in 2014. I think it won't - at least not at anywhere near the cost I pay right now. So I will probably drop health insurance and hope my perfect driving record holds up. And if I get cancer or something else incredibly expensive, I'll be able to purchase health insurance without a bias against the pre-existing condition.

Yes, gaming the system. But the projections for the percentage of your income this plan will cost the average self-employed member of the middle class are extraordinary. I honestly don't think this is going to work like Obama thinks it's going to work.

I'd agree with this. I'm likely to drop my insurance and pay the fine. It really doesn't make sense to keep it if you're healthy from what I've seen.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Well that's kinda the point of the way it was set up, although it's not true that there are no checks. There is impeachment and also Congress can remove jurisdiction for SCOTUS to rule on certain issues.

I think life appointments for SCOTUS was one of the greatest ideas the founders came up with, and am completely opposed to any other format. Judges should not have to worry about whether a decision will cost them a chance at re-election.

I like long term appointments with no elections. However, I would prefer a 20 year term. Something where you could have someone a long time on the bench which limits outside influence. However, it's also a system where you don't rush to find the youngest possible justice that checks off your litmus tests and can get crammed through confirmation.

SI