It Is Not Too Late To Repeal The Whole Damn Thing

May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
#1
What would law professors Nicholas Bagley and Abbe Gluck say about impeaching President Trump if the ACA is repealed? It might happen after Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are dumped. More to the point, Trump has every reason to repeal the ACA if he wants a second term. Every attempt to make conservatives forget the broken promise is not enough.

Will Trump Be Impeached for Obamacare ‘Sabotage’?​
David Catron​
August 16, 2018, 12:05 am​
The New York Times provides a script for doing so.​
Despite attempts by their leadership to tamp down pre-midterm impeachment talk, the Democrats are clearly anxious to remove President Trump from office if the voters are crazy enough to grant them a majority in the House this fall. The only question involves the pretext Pelosi, et al., will use to justify the coup. Their last impeachment resolution, introduced by Texas Rep. Al Green, didn’t list any actual crimes or misdemeanors and it’s unlikely that the Mueller investigation will produce enough evidence of wrongdoing to impeach a ham sandwich. So, what’s a Trump-deranged Democrat to do? Nail him for Obamacare sabotage, of course.​
This idea was introduced more than a year ago by Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, and echoed by Clinton minion Robert Reich last October. It has gained increasing traction among TDS victims as various conspiracy theories involving the Russians have produced nothing but terminations and resignations at the FBI. The notion that Trump is violating the Constitution for failing to toe the progressive line on Obamacare reached a crescendo on Tuesday in the New York Times, where law professors Nicholas Bagley and Abbe Gluck assure the Gray Lady’s hopeful readers, “Mr. Trump’s assault on Obamacare is illegal.”​
Bagley and Gluck, who teach at the University of Michigan and Yale respectively, contend that the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause” leaves the President no room for discretion in the enforcement of the health care law and that there is no modern precedent for his exercise of such discretion. They aver that “Mr. Trump isn’t a king.” Oddly, neither seems to have pointed out that the same restrictions applied to “Mr. Obama” when he unilaterally suspended enforcement of various federal statutes, including the sacrosanct Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). As Professor Zachary Price of UC Hastings reminds us:​

Under President Obama, the executive branch announced policies of abstaining from investigating and prosecuting certain federal marijuana offenses in states where possession of the drug is legal and delaying for substantial periods the enforcement of key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Earlier, the Administration adopted a controversial policy of declining to seek removal of certain sympathetic undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as young children.​

For the Obama administration, in other words, enforcement discretion was practically a mission statement. Nonetheless, neither Bagley nor Gluck denounced “Mr. Obama” as a presidential scofflaw. It would appear, then, that these characters are less concerned with the President’s desire to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” than with the political party to which he belongs. And, even if they weren’t encumbered by transparent political bias, they aren’t up to speed on the provisions of Obamacare. They claim, for example, that the Trump administration’s recently finalized rule on short-term health plans violates the law:​

In a new rule, it announced that insurers will have more latitude to sell “short-term” health plans that are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s rules. These plans were designed to provide people insurance for small gaps in coverage, like those created when switching jobs. They had previously been limited to three months. Under Mr. Trump’s new rule, however, such plans can last for 364 days and can be renewed for up to three years.… This sort of splintering of the insurance markets is not allowed under the Affordable Care Act as Congress drafted it.​

This claim illustrates the ignorance with which Bagley and Gluck approach health care policy. They obviously believe that the duration of these health plans has always been limited to 90 days and that they are explicitly restricted by Obamacare. This is nonsense. Short term health insurance has long been defined, by the states and the federal government, as a policy whose duration is 364 days or less. This was not changed by PPACA. They were arbitrarily (and illegally) restricted to 90 days in 2016 by the Obama administration to stop consumers from using them to avoid purchasing overpriced plans through Obamacare’s exchanges.​
Bagley and Gluck can perhaps be excused for not understanding PPACA. Everyone neglects their homework once in a while. It’s harder to forgive their odd notion that a vague clause in Article II of the Constitution precludes a (Republican) President from using discretion as he enforces the nation’s laws. They see the Take Care Clause as a kind of constitutional straightjacket into which President Trump must be immured. But neither the Constitution, the Supreme Court, nor many scholars support this weirdly rigid view. As Jack Goldsmith and John F. Manning, of Harvard Law, explain in “The Protean Take Care Clause”:​

Phrased in a passive voice, the clause seems to impose upon the President some sort of duty to exercise unspecified means to get those who execute the law, whoever they may be, to act with some sort of fidelity that the clause does not define. Through a long and varied course of interpretation, however, the Court has read that vague but modest language, in the alternative, either as a source of vast presidential power or as a sharp limitation on the powers of both the President and the other branches of government.​

Goldsmith and Manning, the latter being the Dean of Harvard Law, go on to cite a SCOTUS ruling that conflicts with Bagley and Gluck’s claim that “Mr. Trump’s attempt to destroy the law any way he can is an unconstitutional usurpation of power.” In at least one high-profile case, they write, “[T]he Court has read the Take Care Clause as the source of inherent presidential authority to take acts necessary to protect the operations of the federal government, even in cases in which no statute provides explicit authority to do so.” It will be pretty difficult to make an honest legal argument that the President has cleared that lofty bar.​
But Bagley and Gluck aren’t trying to make a legal case, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. They are, instead, colluding with the New York Times to get rid of President Trump by providing a pseudo-constitutional veneer for impeachment. They don’t admit that, of course. They claim in their last paragraph to be motivated by a sincere concern about Trump’s allegedly illegal attacks on the handiwork of Congress and sanctimoniously declare: “No matter how you feel about Obamacare, we should all care about that.” What BS! These two are obviously writing a script for the Democrats. Remember that on November 6, 2018.​
 
Jul 2014
12,829
7,740
massachusetts
#2
Here's the thing, a solid majority of Americans favor ObamaCare. You can point to polls where they oppose it (hint: those polls are from years ago) but today they favor it, and it will only grow in popularity, health care initiatives are the most popular laws around the world, it's no different here, although Americans are easily fooled for a while, eventually they come around, the "window of opportunity" to remove ObamaCare without replacing it with a plan that is more generous has passed.
Like Social Security and Medicare, the people love it, and the politicians won't touch it for that reason.
 
Likes: Clara007
Nov 2012
10,114
8,249
nirvana
#3
What would law professors Nicholas Bagley and Abbe Gluck say about impeaching President Trump if the ACA is repealed? It might happen after Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are dumped. More to the point, Trump has every reason to repeal the ACA if he wants a second term. Every attempt to make conservatives forget the broken promise is not enough.

Will Trump Be Impeached for Obamacare ‘Sabotage’?​
David Catron​
August 16, 2018, 12:05 am​
The New York Times provides a script for doing so.​
Despite attempts by their leadership to tamp down pre-midterm impeachment talk, the Democrats are clearly anxious to remove President Trump from office if the voters are crazy enough to grant them a majority in the House this fall. The only question involves the pretext Pelosi, et al., will use to justify the coup. Their last impeachment resolution, introduced by Texas Rep. Al Green, didn’t list any actual crimes or misdemeanors and it’s unlikely that the Mueller investigation will produce enough evidence of wrongdoing to impeach a ham sandwich. So, what’s a Trump-deranged Democrat to do? Nail him for Obamacare sabotage, of course.​
This idea was introduced more than a year ago by Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, and echoed by Clinton minion Robert Reich last October. It has gained increasing traction among TDS victims as various conspiracy theories involving the Russians have produced nothing but terminations and resignations at the FBI. The notion that Trump is violating the Constitution for failing to toe the progressive line on Obamacare reached a crescendo on Tuesday in the New York Times, where law professors Nicholas Bagley and Abbe Gluck assure the Gray Lady’s hopeful readers, “Mr. Trump’s assault on Obamacare is illegal.”​
Bagley and Gluck, who teach at the University of Michigan and Yale respectively, contend that the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause” leaves the President no room for discretion in the enforcement of the health care law and that there is no modern precedent for his exercise of such discretion. They aver that “Mr. Trump isn’t a king.” Oddly, neither seems to have pointed out that the same restrictions applied to “Mr. Obama” when he unilaterally suspended enforcement of various federal statutes, including the sacrosanct Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). As Professor Zachary Price of UC Hastings reminds us:​

Under President Obama, the executive branch announced policies of abstaining from investigating and prosecuting certain federal marijuana offenses in states where possession of the drug is legal and delaying for substantial periods the enforcement of key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Earlier, the Administration adopted a controversial policy of declining to seek removal of certain sympathetic undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as young children.​

For the Obama administration, in other words, enforcement discretion was practically a mission statement. Nonetheless, neither Bagley nor Gluck denounced “Mr. Obama” as a presidential scofflaw. It would appear, then, that these characters are less concerned with the President’s desire to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” than with the political party to which he belongs. And, even if they weren’t encumbered by transparent political bias, they aren’t up to speed on the provisions of Obamacare. They claim, for example, that the Trump administration’s recently finalized rule on short-term health plans violates the law:​

In a new rule, it announced that insurers will have more latitude to sell “short-term” health plans that are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s rules. These plans were designed to provide people insurance for small gaps in coverage, like those created when switching jobs. They had previously been limited to three months. Under Mr. Trump’s new rule, however, such plans can last for 364 days and can be renewed for up to three years.… This sort of splintering of the insurance markets is not allowed under the Affordable Care Act as Congress drafted it.​

This claim illustrates the ignorance with which Bagley and Gluck approach health care policy. They obviously believe that the duration of these health plans has always been limited to 90 days and that they are explicitly restricted by Obamacare. This is nonsense. Short term health insurance has long been defined, by the states and the federal government, as a policy whose duration is 364 days or less. This was not changed by PPACA. They were arbitrarily (and illegally) restricted to 90 days in 2016 by the Obama administration to stop consumers from using them to avoid purchasing overpriced plans through Obamacare’s exchanges.​
Bagley and Gluck can perhaps be excused for not understanding PPACA. Everyone neglects their homework once in a while. It’s harder to forgive their odd notion that a vague clause in Article II of the Constitution precludes a (Republican) President from using discretion as he enforces the nation’s laws. They see the Take Care Clause as a kind of constitutional straightjacket into which President Trump must be immured. But neither the Constitution, the Supreme Court, nor many scholars support this weirdly rigid view. As Jack Goldsmith and John F. Manning, of Harvard Law, explain in “The Protean Take Care Clause”:​

Phrased in a passive voice, the clause seems to impose upon the President some sort of duty to exercise unspecified means to get those who execute the law, whoever they may be, to act with some sort of fidelity that the clause does not define. Through a long and varied course of interpretation, however, the Court has read that vague but modest language, in the alternative, either as a source of vast presidential power or as a sharp limitation on the powers of both the President and the other branches of government.​

Goldsmith and Manning, the latter being the Dean of Harvard Law, go on to cite a SCOTUS ruling that conflicts with Bagley and Gluck’s claim that “Mr. Trump’s attempt to destroy the law any way he can is an unconstitutional usurpation of power.” In at least one high-profile case, they write, “[T]he Court has read the Take Care Clause as the source of inherent presidential authority to take acts necessary to protect the operations of the federal government, even in cases in which no statute provides explicit authority to do so.” It will be pretty difficult to make an honest legal argument that the President has cleared that lofty bar.​
But Bagley and Gluck aren’t trying to make a legal case, their claims to the contrary notwithstanding. They are, instead, colluding with the New York Times to get rid of President Trump by providing a pseudo-constitutional veneer for impeachment. They don’t admit that, of course. They claim in their last paragraph to be motivated by a sincere concern about Trump’s allegedly illegal attacks on the handiwork of Congress and sanctimoniously declare: “No matter how you feel about Obamacare, we should all care about that.” What BS! These two are obviously writing a script for the Democrats. Remember that on November 6, 2018.​
This is why you are losing elections and will lose the House this fall.

The overwhelming majority of Americans don’t care what conservatives want.
 
Likes: Clara007
May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
#4
Here's the thing, a solid majority of Americans favor ObamaCare. You can point to polls where they oppose it (hint: those polls are from years ago) but today they favor it, and it will only grow in popularity, health care initiatives are the most popular laws around the world, it's no different here, although Americans are easily fooled for a while, eventually they come around, the "window of opportunity" to remove ObamaCare without replacing it with a plan that is more generous has passed.
To goober: Not so when your polls discount millions of illegal immigrants who come here to get something for nothing. If you are right a majority of Americans are now parasites.

In fact, Americans who are being forced to support strangers do not want the ACA replaced. They want insurance companies (Wall Street) reined in.

In case you forgot.

The ACA in 2010 —— and Hillarycare in 1993 —— were written by the insurance industry. The American people wanted no part of either one. Spin it to your heart’s content, but you cannot spin away this one fact —— Americans want no part of socialized medicine.


Like Social Security and Medicare, the people love it, and the politicians won't touch it for that reason.
To goober: Social Security is paid for by private sector labor. It is not, nor was it ever a parasite program until Democrats began giving SS benefits to every illegal alien parasite that never paid a penny into it.

If you insist on talking about Social Security try to learn a bit about it:


FDR Socialists were very careful to make SS a required insurance plan rather than make it a voluntary pension plan. Had they done it that way American workers would have the choice of paying into a government-backed pension plan, or buying a private sector pension plan.​

http://defendingthetruth.com/economics/66473-cyclical-boom-bust.html#post1172804
 
Dec 2015
13,770
12,646
Arizona
#5
This is a wealthy country. We (federal gov) can afford all sorts of things like military parades, border walls, military equipment, military golf/ski resorts, research on everything from chimps to mudfish, language studies, unused flight tickets, empty buildings, printing docs that no one reads, forgotten storage units, concert tickets, car rentals, and yes--Super Bowl ads...but.....we can't afford healthcare. We can't afford prescription drugs. We bitch about the SNAP program and social programs. We can't afford safe infrastructure like bridges and schools.
Americans are DYING because of big Pharma--the cost of insulin that affects 1 in 10 Americans--the cost of Epi-Pens--the cost of drugs for cancer, arthritis, and asthma. The cost of ambulances is outrageous. The cost of ER care is shocking....but we can't afford healthcare insurance. How do we justify this? Our drug prices are the highest in the world so if you want to REALLY make America great, how about working on that. AND YAY for us. We're NUMBER ONE in the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs.
 
May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
#6
This is a wealthy country. We (federal gov) can afford all sorts of things like military parades, border walls, military equipment, military golf/ski resorts, research on everything from chimps to mudfish, language studies, unused flight tickets, empty buildings, printing docs that no one reads, forgotten storage units, concert tickets, car rentals, and yes--Super Bowl ads...but.....we can't afford healthcare. We can't afford prescription drugs. We bitch about the SNAP program and social programs. We can't afford safe infrastructure like bridges and schools.
To Clara007: Nice mixture. Try separating the necessary from your parasite wish list. (I noticed that you did not put tax dollar funded abortions in your witch’s brew.)

Incidentally, education industry parasites gets more UNCONSTITUTIONAL tax dollars than all of the parasite industries combined.


Americans are DYING because of big Pharma--the cost of insulin that affects 1 in 10 Americans--the cost of Epi-Pens--the cost of drugs for cancer, arthritis, and asthma. The cost of ambulances is outrageous. The cost of ER care is shocking....but we can't afford healthcare insurance. How do we justify this? Our drug prices are the highest in the world so if you want to REALLY make America great, how about working on that. AND YAY for us. We're NUMBER ONE in the cost of healthcare and prescription drugs.
To Clara007: Get your head screwed on right. The exorbitant costs you cite are created by the insurance industry. Then you turn around say “. . . but we can't afford healthcare insurance.”

If you are really concerned about healthcare costs you should be demanding that every healthcare entity traded on Wall Street, etc., be prohibited from receiving tax dollars directly or indirectly. Do not bother calculating the odds on that prohibition being picked up by Congress? It is a non-starter. No law curtailing even the most destructive form of absentee ownership will ever be passed in this country.
 
Jul 2014
12,829
7,740
massachusetts
#7
To goober: Not so when your polls discount millions of illegal immigrants who come here to get something for nothing. If you are right a majority of Americans are now parasites.

In fact, Americans who are being forced to support strangers do not want the ACA replaced. They want insurance companies (Wall Street) reined in.

In case you forgot.

The ACA in 2010 —— and Hillarycare in 1993 —— were written by the insurance industry. The American people wanted no part of either one. Spin it to your heart’s content, but you cannot spin away this one fact —— Americans want no part of socialized medicine.



To goober: Social Security is paid for by private sector labor. It is not, nor was it ever a parasite program until Democrats began giving SS benefits to every illegal alien parasite that never paid a penny into it.

If you insist on talking about Social Security try to learn a bit about it:

FDR Socialists were very careful to make SS a required insurance plan rather than make it a voluntary pension plan. Had they done it that way American workers would have the choice of paying into a government-backed pension plan, or buying a private sector pension plan.​

http://defendingthetruth.com/economics/66473-cyclical-boom-bust.html#post1172804
Absolutely clueless