Is Another Court Loss on ObamaCare on the Horizon?
The alert reader may recall that last year, the House of Representatives won a court victory in an ObamaCare-related lawsuit. The judge agreed with the House that President Obama had illegally given cost-sharing subsidies to insurers without Congressional organization.
Obama appealed that decision, and President Trump has threatened to drop the appeal, calling the payments “bailouts” for health insurers. But three Obama appointees just tied Trump’s hands considerably, by allowing lefty attorneys general from several states to intervene in the case:
A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday allowed Democratic state attorneys general to defend subsidy payments to insurance companies under the Obamacare healthcare law, a critical part of funding for the statute that President Donald Trump has threatened to cut off.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a motion filed by the 16 attorneys general, led by California’s Xavier Becerra and New York’s Eric Schneiderman.
True to leftist form, the Democrat-appointed judges’ reasoning seems driven by extrajudicial concerns about the viability of ObamaCare, rather than by the constitutionality of the payments:
The order issued by the three-judge panel, all Obama appointees, said the states had shown “a substantial risk that an injunction requiring termination of the payments at issue here … would lead directly and imminently to an increase in insurance prices, which in turn will increase the number of uninsured individuals for whom the states will have to provide health care.”
“In addition, state-funded hospitals will suffer financially when they are unable to recoup costs from uninsured, indigent patients for whom federal law requires them to provide medical care,” the court order said.
Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, said the decision was a “big deal” because it makes it difficult for the Trump administration to settle the case.
“Allowing the states to intervene will increase the pressure on the administration to keep making the cost-sharing payments,” he said, noting that the administration could still stop making the payments.
This decision is not good news for the rule of law. It appears to be a harbinger of an ideologically driven ruling in favor of the illegal payments.
Eventually, the case will probably make its meandering way up to the Supreme Court, where John Roberts will again team up with the liberals to apply the venerable legal principle “Quicquid adjuvat Obamacare lex” or “Whatever helps ObamaCare is the law.” (Note to Latin scholars: that’s according to a Google translating app that is probably wrong. If you’re looking for accurate scholarship in the area of the Latin language, you might be reading the wrong writer. As the Romans said: “Patterico numquam petita esse latinis instructum.”)
Score another loss for the good guys on health care. Again.
[Cross-posted at RedState.]
“Quicquid adjuvat Obamacare lex”
Sounds unfair in a vacuum, but what about strategically placed IEDs designed to undermine ACA? You know like refusing something VA has…drug price negotiation.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 10:47 amFrom the Reuters article: “The subsidies help cover out-of-pocket medical expenses for low-income Americans.”
Huh? If they are subsidies to insurers then they most certainly don’t cover “out-of-pocket” expenses. Only subsidies to the actual patient would accomplish that. Typical misdirection by Democrat-friendly media.
JVW (42615e) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:05 amThere’s more here to dislike.
1. The ACA requires those purchasing individual plans to participate in a single pool, without respect to health.
2. The ACA requires insurance companies to lower co-pays, deductibles, and maximum out-of-pocket amounts to low-income households.
3. The ACA assumes that the US government will reimburse companies for this largesse, but apparently does not appropriate funds for this purpose.
4. If insurance companies cannot get this from the feds, they will add this to the costs of everyone in the risk pool.
This means two things: The people who are getting these subsidies, being a subset of those getting premium subsidies, will not pay a dime more — their subsidies will go up to match and that money IS appropriated. The other people getting premium subsidies are also covered.
The responsible people who HAD insurance in the individual market before Obamacare barged in, will generally NOT get any subsidy, so their premiums will go up yet again. Perhaps a lot, since there is no real policing of who can claim these co-pay subsidies, other than IRS audits.
This amounts to an additional, large, income transfer from working self-employed people to the poor without any act of Congress. Since the class of self-employed is small, it is not clear that such a law would be Constitutional. In any event the large sacrifice already demanded of this group to assuage the guilt of the exempted 95% of the population, grows yet larger.
But “principle!” Feh!
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:25 am3..price at the pump anger gets mailed to the WH as will health ins premium increases. He can claim non- ownership but it still belongs to Trump.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:30 am“I want the people who work for me to have health insurance,” Ron Johnson R-wisconsin.
Heh.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:40 amJVW–
The way it is set up, law requires insurers to offer plans (“Enhanced Silver”) to households making a bit more than the Medi-Cal cutoff. In these plans the maximum OOP, the deductible and the per-service co-pays are all dramatically reduced. Further, the insurers are supposed to make up the reduced co-pay to the provider.
But Congress never appropriated the money for these “shared payments”. It DID however, require the insurance companies to act as if this money was forthcoming.
The Dems argue that the money was appropriated by implication. The insurers argue that the money needs to come from somewhere or they go broke. This is made more difficult by the “unexpected” number of households that somehow have managed to get themselves in this very sweet spot, either by managing income or by lying. There is, so far as I can tell, no clawback provision for this subsidy.
To get a sense of how bad this situation is, pretend for a moment that insurers were going to raise EVERY policy (group, supplement, individual) to cover this shortfall. Including yours.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:42 amIt was designed to implode, this what Frank and hacker and Obama and Schakowsky have admitted.
NARCISO (d1a69d) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:45 amThis is one of the costs of destroying free market health insurance in favor of a closed nationally controlled market. Without a working majority and a willingness by political leadership to return to a free-er market we’re trapped in a too big to fail system created by our know betters.
crazy (11d38b) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:46 amLooking back, I wonder if an “undue burden on self-employed people” approach might have helped the Supreme Court case. Because it has been, and is now getting much worse.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:47 amIt’s not the implosion I object to. It’s all you lot hiding behind the bulkheads, cheering on the implosion, while a number of us are stuck out here with the bomb.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:49 amYes the implosion is a crisis, we can’t let go to waste, as the fellow who used to mail dead fish used to say.
NARCISO (d1a69d) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:53 amhttp://thehill.com/homenews/senate/344957-mccain-arizona-was-about-to-get-screwed-by-gop-healthcare-plan
Arizona was screwed by McCain and his wrecking crew. Sick, old and enrich is a terrible risk group we tried to warn about. But, no. It was designed to fill by failure engineers.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:54 amUNrich…
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:54 amSheesh..designed to fail by failure engineers.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:56 amYep the classic captain tupolev maneuver by maverick and fideloflake@
NARCISO (d1a69d) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:56 am> The Dems argue that the money was appropriated by implication.
I don’t think appropriation works that way, legally.
> The insurers argue that the money needs to come from somewhere or they go broke.
Which is correct. 🙂
This is clearly Congress’ fault.
*I* have strong opinions about people who know that appropriating the money is essential to keeping things from getting worse but who choose not to do so anyway; I suspect you have strong opinions about people who knew that the system would depend on the appropriation and who created the system despite the fact that they should have known that no appropriations would be forthcoming.
Either way, though, the current situation is broken, and it’s likely to remain that way as it’s clear that we can’t get an agreement in Congress on how to fix it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 11:57 amI actually have strong feelings about people who choose a tiny minority of citizens to be their sacrifice zone. Suppose instead they had crated a system where indigent folks were “assigned” pro rata to group plans, and the insurers adjusted their risk estimates and premiums accordingly?
Sounds terrible, but instead of sharing that burden with the majority who are in the group plans, they picked a 5% minority to shoulder the whole load. And after 5 years of this crap, I gotta say it sucks. You have no idea how pernicious it is.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:03 pmOf course, the reason they didn’t do that is that there are a lot of Democrats in those group plans, and while it’s fine to give medical care to the working poor, it’s a much different thing when it costs THEM.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:05 pmBut otherwise, I’m not bitter about the ACA.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:05 pm> I actually have strong feelings about people who choose a tiny minority of citizens to be their sacrifice zone.
That’s entirely fair!
> Suppose instead they had created a system where indigent folks were “assigned” pro rata to group plans, and the insurers adjusted their risk estimates and premiums accordingly?
I don’t know enough about the economics to be sure, and on surface it seems like it’s a reasonable solution.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:11 pmWell, you can’t destroy employer based health insurance coverage without propping up Obamacare.
Lyrics Don't Matter (0c7c2f) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:11 pmBut I also think that the majority in Congress, by not appropriating the money, is *choosing* to not make the situation better for you in order to ensure your continued opposition to the ACA. Isn’t that just as contemptible as the original choice by Congress to inflict the burden on you?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:12 pmI’m not so sure the ruling is wrong procedurally, and that’s the point. Its not a ruling on the substance — its an evaluation of the relative harms that would flow from allowing an injunction — or failing to allow an injunction — with regard to a lower court ruling about to go into effect while an appeal is pending.
When the Feds change sides on appeal from where they were in the lower court, the Appeals Court is required to look to see whether there are “real parties in interest” who will be impacted by the lower court ruling, and if they seek to take the place vacated by the feds, the the Appeals Court is pretty much required to let them in.
That doesn’t mean at the end of the day they will ultimately uphold or overturn the lower court ruling — only that they want advocacy on both sides of the issue as was the case in the lower court.
shipwreckedcrew (f4dbf1) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:12 pmTrump can still just order the payments stopped. How a judge can order the Treasury to spend money that has not been appropriated is beyond me, but then I don’t speak jive.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:14 pmBecause that is,the living constotution Hagel enshrined via Woodrow wilson.
narciso (82af23) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:15 pmPatrick’s outrage seems to be at the state attorneys general being allowed to pursue the appeal.
IANAL, but isn’t this a fairly simple question of whether they have standing (which basically comes down to whether the original ruling would harm them or the people they represent)?
I guess I don’t understand on what basis it would make sense that only the executive branch of the federal government can appeal, if state governments will be affected by severe dislocation of their insurance markets.
Dave (445e97) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:16 pmBut I also think that the majority in Congress, by not appropriating the money, is *choosing* to not make the situation better for you in order to ensure your continued opposition to the ACA. Isn’t that just as contemptible as the original choice by Congress to inflict the burden on you?
Well, in my case it’s “making it worse”, not failing to “make the situation better”, and I’ve opposed it from Day 0. It just isn’t good politics to turn the screws on your own side, and your side alone.
Please do not work under the impression that the low-income recipients of all this largesse are going to pay one thin dime more. They won’t, under current law.
But instead of having the US government (and all its taxpayers) on the hook for this money, its going to be 5 million middle-class taxpayers who are singled out for all of it. And they ALL used to vote Republican.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:21 pmI guess I don’t understand on what basis it would make sense that only the executive branch of the federal government can appeal, if state governments will be affected by severe dislocation of their insurance markets.
Gee, how come no one worried about that in 2010?
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:24 pm> Please do not work under the impression that the low-income recipients of all this largesse are going to pay one thin dime more. They won’t, under current law.
More than likely they *can’t*. As the saying goes, you can’t squeeze blood from a stone.
That said, in that case, the burden should apply broadly across the tax base and not just on one small subset.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:24 pmBecause there was no ruling to appeal in 2010?
swc@23 basically makes the same argument I tried to, but in a more legally literate way (since he’s a lawyer and I’m not). Namely, that this is a narrow procedural question of whether affected state governments have sufficient skin in the game to appeal.
Dave (445e97) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:31 pmMeanwhile, back on the “Our healthcare system can be just as good as that in the U.K. if only we embrace socialism” front:
“Hospital leaders in North Yorkshire said that patients with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or above – as well as smokers – will be barred from most surgery for up to a year amid increasingly desperate measures to plug a funding black hole. The restrictions will apply to standard hip and knee operations.
The decision, described by the Royal College of Surgeons as the “most severe the modern NHS has ever seen”, led to warnings that other trusts will soon be forced to follow suit and rationing will become the norm if the current funding crisis continues.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/obese-patients-and-smokers-banned-from-all-routine-operations-by/
Change You Can Believe In!
harkin (536957) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:37 pmI see a more nasty set of protocols for unhealthy Americans.
BMIs would indicate eligible foodstuffs for overweight individuals who need help losing weight
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:42 pmHedgerow country.
On to Paris.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:47 pm26. Dave (445e97) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:16 pm
his real worry seems to be the grounds on which it was allowed. Now to me this looks just like a “standing” argument” which has nothing to do with the legal merits, but he saw in this a sign that the ciurt wanted to rule the payments were permissible because of the prsctical effects.
This could have been fixed years ago, but Obama didn’t want to try a legislative fix. The original problem is here because they wanted the CBO score to be lower, so they assumed no net payments after a few years. The PPACA had several different deliberate defects which the Democrats probably intended to fix in the next Congress or two when the CBO score wouldn’t matter any more.
Note: Even if the payments are legal, they are not necessarily required But that may be wrong. Trump may have the power to remit or withhold only because the matter is on appeal.
What Donald Trump can more certainly revoke is the permission for Congress to use the small
business exchange (which allows employers to subsidize insurance rates.) That may not be legal but nobody objected.
But a fx for all this, if it causes real pressure, is likely to be including in the continuing resolution, or debt ceiling legislation. Of course Trump could veto that.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:56 pmThat’s entirely fair!
aprhael, I’m pretty sure this was intentional — the Congressional Democrats did not want to saddle a large group with the pain (or the opposition would have been been more intense) and have always viewed the self-employed as largely Republican. So, win-win. Help your base (the poor) and screw over people who would never vote for you anyway, while keeping the harm away from the mass of the population. This also allowed them to lie repeatedly and only have voices in the wilderness calling them out.
A plan that spread the pain more widely would have gotten much more of a response. Obama even made side deals with allies for “waivers” when some of the more minor aspects of the plan affected them.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:01 pmMore than likely they *can’t*. As the saying goes, you can’t squeeze blood from a stone.
Well, gee. That’s sad. But you know, *I* can’t afford to spend $40,000 a year on medicine either, and that’s just about where this is going to end up. The CHEAPEST plan I was offered this year has a maximum loss of $28,000 with a guaranteed loss of $14,000.
Lots of stones being squeezed. And again from not very many people.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:06 pmTrumps ‘leadership’s style is gaining traction …
http://nypost.com/2017/08/01/residents-fuming-over-sex-crazed-hotel-guests/
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:07 pmI see a more nasty set of protocols for unhealthy Americans.
Don’t get old, Ben.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:09 pmThis could have been fixed years ago, but Obama didn’t want to try a legislative fix
Because the Republicans would insist on fixing things THEY thought needed fixing, too. So, instead, Obama just signed checks without authority.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:12 pmI’m 68 Kevin but I’m one of the lucky one’s whose former employer pays 3/4 of my premiums to the tune of $18k per yr.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:13 pmR.I.P. Ara Parseghian, 94
Notre Dame legend. Kicked the bucket into the end zone.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:23 pmHe screwed Rudy and left his promise to let him dress for one game fall like his humanity. But he was a winning coach so ainokea…
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:27 pm.
I’m 68 Kevin but I’m one of the lucky one’s whose former employer pays 3/4 of my premiums to the tune of $18k per yr.
On top of Medicare? Must be government.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:30 pmPolitifact celebrates 10 years
.”President Trump is not like other politicians. He revels in insulting opponents, and his harsh attacks are at odds with the rules of civility. He tends to speak off the cuff, exaggerating to make a point. We fact-check Trump regularly, and over time we’ve found that roughly 70 percent of the things we’ve chosen to fact-check have significant accuracy problems. He says things over and over that are not accurate, and he doesn’t seem to put much effort into correcting himself.
Every week, I write an email to PolitiFact readers who have signed up to hear what we’re covering. Recently, when I pointed out some of the things the president got wrong, a reader emailed me back: “Please remove my email address from PolitiFact, a fake news service written by intellectuals yet idiots, who haven’t a clue about real life (and are) trying to destroy the American way. Holan, you should be ashamed.” (This was relatively mild criticism.)
It always depresses me a little to get emails that don’t engage our fact-checks or say why we’re wrong or what we misunderstood.
Today, both sides seem to have an abiding hatred that is much more intense. Monitoring such a toxic discourse is wearying. And I think it’s wearying for everyone: the public, the media, even some of the politicians themselves.
It is not easy to tease out all the causes of increasing negative partisanship. Inequality, economic isolation, cultural divisions, racial divisions, philosophical differences and an increasingly partisan media likely all play a part.
Yet I sympathize with that reader who emailed me, because I think he feels lied to. I’m not lying to him, though, and I hope he takes a minute to look again at our reports, to read them with an open mind and to look at our source documentation. I realize he probably won’t look, but maybe another reader will.
It’s that hope that sustains PolitiFact’s commitment to thorough reporting, transparency of evidence, and a rational and reasoned discourse. The true enemy of democracy is cynicism and apathy, when we throw up our hands and say we can’t agree on anything, so nothing matters.
Politics is a tough world right now, but fact-checking is still well worth doing. There is a tremendous power in the simple assertion of what is true.
At PolitiFact, we’ll keep on asserting the truth, and our readership remains those who want to hear it.”
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:34 pmObama even made side deals with allies for “waivers” when some of the more minor aspects of the plan affected them.
That was the most obnoxious part of the whole shebang, and I agree with Kevin M that it was a cynical ploy to make sure that protected Democrat constituencies (especially unions) didn’t have to feel the brunt of the legislation. Another great example of this is Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren teaming up to try to have the taxes imposed upon medical device companies waved, just because Minnesota and Massachusetts are both home to several medical device companies. It’s almost as if they aren’t serious about fully funding Obamacare, at least not with money from their friends and allies.
JVW (42615e) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:34 pmI see a more nasty set of protocols for unhealthy Americans.
More constructively…
I don’t. I see a public absolutely unwilling to go back to “preexisting exclusion” policies. Especially if they might apply to THEM.
I also see a GOP so myopic that it cannot fashion a free-market plan that accomplishes that, so the entire system will fail (the ACA failure will reverberate) and politicians will panic. It will go like this:
1. We HAVE to fix the medical system NOW.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:36 pm2. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!
3. Single-payer is something.
4. Single-payer MUST BE DONE!
No private but generous. The wife and I pay the other $500 per mo..$500 deductible each with $5000 stop loss. Still hard but could be impossible.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:37 pmIt always depresses me a little to get emails that don’t engage our fact-checks or say why we’re wrong or what we misunderstood.
“Not that we really care what they write as we aren’t going to change anything anyway.”
(in the first draft)
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:43 pmIf just one of us has an episode meeting stop loss it means our care costs for that year is $11k or one quarter of our pre-tax income.
Without subsidy…impossible.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:44 pmBen, but on top of Medicare? Near as I can tell the max supplement plan for a couple is a few hundred bucks a month. What am I missing?
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:45 pmNo. I don’t know the breakdown but the premium I cited included Medicare and Cigna Medicare supplement.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:47 pmAre You thinking I’m in the ACA exchange?
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:48 pmharkin,
It’s rather heartless of the NHS to apply those socialist culling standards without offering those to be culled three months under the socialist Caracas Diet. The socialist Caracas Diet has proven to be so effective that international recognition is being given to how slim and trim the average Venezuelan has become. Credit needs to be given to the results achieved and it should be noted that removing medical supplies and drugs from the reach of the average consumer in Venezuela has succeeded in driving down costs to the point where practically everyone who is not a ranking party member has equal access to everything available.
Rick Ballard (39e1b7) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:51 pmHe’s lying Kevin. That’s all.
NJRob (1f95bf) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:53 pmIf nutjob thinks that’s bad check out life insurance when you’re 90. You self insure in about 3 years. Lol.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 1:59 pmAre You thinking I’m in the ACA exchange?
No, I’m thinking you are yet another person with no skin in the game, but plenty of righteous opinion.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:01 pmSo you were just trolling.
When you pull your research head out your as we, be sure to be dishonest about it. Remember…TRUMP!
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:03 pmYour baseline confusion intersects perfectly with Dear Leader.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:04 pmI just love the silence following a goid beating. You guys got ‘nuttin.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:05 pmAh, good old Politifact.
The site that rated Obama’s “if you like your plan, you can keep it” as ‘Mostly True‘ in 2009 but by 2013 called ‘Lie of The Year’.
Give us a fact-checker that doesn’t take years to admit both Obama and they themselves were talking out their backsides.
harkin (536957) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:14 pmharkonnen: Fox politifacts Trump Seth Rich in breaking news.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:19 pm“That was the most obnoxious part of the whole shebang,”
There were plenty of obnoxious, crooked, graft-filled, filled-with-favoritism etc. features for all his cronies.
Don’t forget the billions he gave AARP for their support.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/09/22/the-aarps-2-8-billion-reasons-for-supporting-obamacares-cuts-to-medicare/amp/
harkin (536957) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:20 pmHah! AARP supported Bush’s Medicare reform Act creating those popular Doughnut Holes in prescription drugs. You see they ARE an insurance co.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:22 pmCarlos slim notes there are signs of a dictatorship under Tommy boy.
narciso (82af23) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:23 pm“harkonnen: Fox politifacts Trump Seth Rich….”
I’m still trying to figure out the goid-beating thing; do you beat your goids daily, do you have a smoke afterwards and do you consider it part of your personal leadership style?
harkin (536957) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:26 pmLike Trump, when hit I hit back much harder. I thought you liked tuff guys.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:30 pmAnd welcome to the Word of the Day Club.
Goids everywhere salute you.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 2:31 pmThe troll posted trolling comments then 2 minutes later declares victory when no one responded. Seems about par for the course.
NJRob (1f95bf) — 8/2/2017 @ 3:08 pmI’m waiting for hours to hear more about my typos. You guys always disappear. You’d stay if you had something to say. Instead you return after danger seems expired.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 3:12 pmSeymour Hersh says hello.
NJRob (1f95bf) — 8/2/2017 @ 3:12 pmSome of us work for a living and don’t have all day to waste trolling like you do.
NJRob (1f95bf) — 8/2/2017 @ 3:13 pmDog ate your homework?
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 3:14 pmThe CBS Evening News and others, and it seems Congress is treating like it’s news that Donald Trump and the White House wrote Donald Trump’s initial statement about the meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower in June 2016.
The Washington Post scooped the New York Times by negative three weeks. They are treating the New York Times story like it didn’t exist and quoting only Jay Sekulow. (The only thing the Washington Post has that the New York Times didn’t is the idea that Donald Trump wrote the statement all by himself, which is implausible.)
Sammy Finkelman (243dd1) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:22 pmDonald Trump Jr. imitial statement. I don’t know if the White House denied that, but I think it was a given and admitted that DJT Jr didn’t write his first statement, the one that mentioned only the discussion about adoptions and not what led up to it or how many Russians were there,
Sammy Finkelman (243dd1) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:25 pmKevin M:
> The CHEAPEST plan I was offered this year has a maximum loss of $28,000 with a guaranteed loss of $14,000.
Yeah, that can’t work, shouldn’t be expected to work, and needs to be fixed.
> Well, gee. That’s sad. But you know, *I* can’t afford to spend $40,000 a year on medicine either
I’m somewhat not sure how to respond to that, and I’m aware of myself that i’m in a massively argumentative mood where I literally want to pick a fight with everyone about everything, so I’m going to drop it. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:27 pmAnd along those lines:
DRJ: I owe you, and others, an apology. I was being snarkily ungenerous of thought yesterday, and I was doing it because of my own activation about something else. You didn’t deserve the snark, and I apologize for it.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:33 pmThe whordes are rejoicing over Miller ‘telling it like it is”. Will anti-democratic misfits wear us down?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/2/16086108/stephen-miller-jim-acosta-glenn-thrush-press-briefing
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:37 pmKevin, at 46:
I think the public is *right* to not want to go back to preexisting exclusion policies. Those policies were a disaster when they existed, and we should not revive them.
That said, I don’t think that the people in positions of power in the Republican party agree, and I don’t think they’ve recognized that the public objects. So they haven’t internalized it as a requirement and are producing plans that don’t meet the requirement, which the public is unhappy with.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:38 pmC’mon. Admit it. Miller is spittin image of Goebbels..
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:39 pmNJRob, at 54: do you have evidence to back up your assertion that Ben is lying, or are you just making the assertion?
Ben Burn, at various numbers: “be sure to be dishonest about it”, “your baseline confusion intersects perfectly with Dear Leader”, “You guys always disappear. You’d stay if you had something to say”, “Dog ate your homework”, etc, all seem to me to indicate that you aren’t here to converse with people who are your equals – you are here to belittle people who disagree with them.
The accusation of dishonesty was bad enough; the assertion that people are disappearing for nefarious reasons *rather than because they have lives and aren’t tied to this website around the clock* is … uncharitable at best. Not to mention insulting and rude.
Please desist.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:42 pmFull of judgement, are we. I don’t say those things for insult value, but yo illustrate the projective dishonesty I’m accused of. The disappearing act occurs without variation when my facts make them uncomfortable. I can only assume a lack of honest and non-fake debate.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:46 pmLike I said in 75 and 76, I’m in a foul mood and fundamentally want to fight with everyone about everything right now.
That said, my mood aside, the things you are saying *are* rude, and they *are* insulting, and from what I can see they aren’t causing people to want to have honest debate with you; they’re causing people to believe that honest debate with you is impossible and pointless, because what your behavior says you care about is not finding common ground, or persuading, but rather scoring points and collecting scalps.
If that’s working for you, then it works for you. But it noticeably decreases the degree to which this site is useful for honest conversation.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:51 pmWhen you’ve seen more of my comments you’ll see I engage honestly when given some respect. If you expect more than that you will be disappointed.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:54 pmhttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/trump-administration-current-war-authority-sufficient-48995285
They don’t trust him with Russia…how about AUMF?
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:55 pmWTF? Ben burn, are you really a troll engaged in “jamming”? Filling up and derailing all the threads with irrelevant to the thread leftist themes?
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:08 pmIs that a real question nk?
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:10 pmRhetorical, really, because I am almost certain the truthful answer is “yes”. I changed my mind. I hope that Patterico does not allow you to turn the threads here into what the JustOneMinute threads have become.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:12 pmStar Chamber would be consistent.
MJONES
The Justice Department has declined to disclose the task force’s membership, its meeting agendas, or its recommendations to the attorney general. The task force was slated to deliver a report to Sessions last week, but it has not been made public. Instead, the group supposedly behind some of the Trump administration’s most consequential policy moves remains an almost complete mystery.
On February 9, the day Sessions was sworn in as attorney general, Trump signed an executive order instructing Sessions to create a criminal justice task force, which he did on February 27. […] In April, Sessions provided a few more details about the scope of the task force’s mission, in a memo stating that it would review a wide range of policies, from illegal immigration to marijuana. The memo also revealed two specific members on the task force: a career Justice Department attorney named Robyn Thiemann and a federal prosecutor from Tennessee named Steven Cook, whom Sessions had hired as assistant deputy attorney general to oversee criminal justice policy. Like most details about the task force, Thiemann and Cook’s official roles were not made clear, but subsequent reports have described them as co-chairs. The involvement of Cook, a proponent of harsh sentencing and a foe of criminal justice reform, was a signal that the group would take a hardline stance on law enforcement.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:12 pmAll of #37, #77, #84, and #88 appear to be attempts at threadjacking.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:15 pmThat’s your knee jerking you. I’m here to debate conservative legends and punch through the crust of sectored, insulated islands of knowledge.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:16 pmThis is how it started at JoM. Make points they can’t answer and they don’t like it. Isn’t that why you and Ballard ditched it, nk?
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:19 pmSee, the thread has a particular topic, and while it’s one thing for a thread to drift, it’s quite another to post things that are neither on topic nor responsive to a comment in the thread, thereby trying to change the topic to the topic you would prefer to talk about. The four comments I called out all appear to be an attempt to change the topic.
That’s not my knee jerking me at all. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:19 pmThreads often drift and the comments you found offensive were ad hominem attacks having nothing to do with the subject but you made me the focus of your misfired. You are hardly objective in your ‘critique’
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:23 pmJom is a nest of anti-democratic and anti speech types who like their special clique free of discouraging words. Some here might want to reflect..
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:26 pmthread grifter
mg (31009b) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:27 pmBen, at 93: i’m not trying to be objective. I’m trying to call you *specifically* out for what I perceive as bad behavior. Telling me that other people are also behaving in ways that you think I should perceive as bad is an *accurate representation of the state of the world*, AND it doesn’t excuse your behavior. It just makes you look like a toddler.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:27 pm@79. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim. Jim X 10 to the 23rd power.
Miller w/t bark off: “DeForest-ation;” breaks Star Trek’s Dr. McCoy [DeForest Kelley] record for number of ‘Jims’ spoken on television in an hour.
DCSCA (797bc0) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:30 pmYou sound like a life member of the purity squad. I’ve ‘splained myself enough. Engage or ignore. It’s your problem.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:31 pmRoberts is anything but justice
mg (31009b) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:31 pmhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-attorney-subpoenas-kushner-cos-over-investment-for-visa-program-1501717119
Oh yes. It’s coming
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:34 pm.
Heh. At teh very least I unite the disparate factions of conservatism
‘Teh enemy of my enemy’.lol
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:41 pmBurnie,
You’re uniting the left, Aphrael, the right who dislike Trump, nk, and the right who tolerate Trump, me.
Congrats.
NJRob (1f95bf) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:49 pmNJRob – is this the first time we’ve been publically on the same side of something? It might very well be. Or not; I can’t remember. Thirteen years is a long time. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:49 pmIf Aphrael is Left then I’m so far left I’m heading Right again. You need a real Leftist like me.
Ben burn (df1406) — 8/2/2017 @ 5:52 pmKevin M:
75. aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/2/2017 @ 4:27 pm
What can’t work is the entire system. Medical care costs are simply too high. Kevin says he’s been put into a high risk pool with people who have pre-existing conditions even though he tried to avoid that over the years by maintaining continuous coverage.
But the charges are just too high and the system can be gamed by medical providers, and Congress isn’t facing up to the fact that pries are just too high. They want to pretend that most people can afford good medical insurance.
Samy Finkelman (f4eebb) — 8/2/2017 @ 6:28 pmhappyfeet has been doing it better for over a dozen years. Gone so far left that he’s to the right.
That’s because he’s a very smart guy and he gets it. That Western liberalism is possible only in the midst of affluence.
When people worry about keeping body and soul together, they become puritanical in their outlook. Strait-laced, narrow-minded, authoritarian, reactionary. Stingy, too. Whether they’re in Cotton Mather’s Massachusetts or Stalin’s Russia.
When they’re comfortable, with full bellies, nice clothes, nice cars, nice houses, all the entertainment they have time for (and they have lots of time), and a sense of security that this state of affairs will continue, that’s when they allow themselves the additional luxury of a “live and let live” philosophy for those with a different lifestyle, and a generous attitude for those who have less.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2017 @ 6:44 pmBen burn is no happyfeet. I have yet to read anything from him that is not a parroting of puerile leftist tropes to be found at random on the internet.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:01 pmGoing back to the subject of the thread, I don’t see anything legally improper with the D.C. Circuit’s decision. It allowed the real parties in interest, who will vigorously prosecute the appeal, to intervene, that’s all.
nk (dbc370) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:05 pm24. Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 12:14 pm
I think the issue is not appropriations – but authorization. Money cannot be appropriated unless it is also authorized. It goes through different committees in Congress than appropriations.
I think the money has been appropriated, or at any rate, they’re using appropriated funds. Money has been shuffled around. There may be some discretion allowed. The media aren’t doing any kind of a job in explaining what this is. As usual.
I think the money originally was supposed to come from insurance companies that underestimated their claims except there aren’t any. Or that could be something else. There was some kind of a stop loss provision for insurance companies but the federal government just paying it tapered off with time. But maybe that’s another thing..
I suppose a good Google search maybe could find out what this is all about.
Maybe somebody can find the legal briefs in this case or the lower court opinion, which should explain most f this, except for why.
Sammy Finkelman (f4eebb) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:08 pmHe’s lying Kevin. That’s all.
Must be because the most crazy-ass Medicare supplement plan is MAYBE $500 for a couple. If they’re charging his former company 2 grand a month at 68, he’s either way stupid or he’s getting kickbacks.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:08 pmAnother great and depressing post.
At least with your Trump-bashing post I could feel the satisfaction of self-righteousness.
And, yes aphreal, I imagine all of us can understand where you are coming from.
I think I’ll go read the pet thread at Ace. That’ll cheer me up. You might like it too, aphreal.
ThOR (c9324e) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:14 pmI think the public is *right* to not want to go back to preexisting exclusion policies. Those policies were a disaster when they existed, and we should not revive them.
That said, I don’t think that the people in positions of power in the Republican party agree, and I don’t think they’ve recognized that the public objects. So they haven’t internalized it as a requirement and are producing plans that don’t meet the requirement, which the public is unhappy with.
I agree wholeheartedly with all of this. McCain did them a favor. RYAN understood, and offered a plan that MET those requirements. But not others. Paying subsidies to families with $130K of income, yet being niggardly with respect to low-income people was a mistake. But tailoring it to age was good, and having a sliding scale income dropoff was a lot better than the cliff edge in current law. When $1 more income costs you $10 grand in lost tax credits, poor incentives creep in.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:16 pmI’m here to debate conservative legends and punch through the crust of sectored, insulated islands of knowledge.
Are you REALLY so STUPID as to think that conservatives can cocoon? We can’t go to the grocery store without being inundated with “popular wisdom.” The low-brow media is all hard left. You have to actually go out of your way to find opinions on the right. Leftists can cocoon all they want — nothing will challenge them unless they turn on Fox, or read the WSJ, or travel to right-leaning blogs.
So, if that’s why you’re here — to bring light to our darkness — rest assured we know more about what your side is thinking that you do.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:23 pmSammy,
I’m pretty sure “appropriation” is the word I am looking for.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7:
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”
And yet, Obama did that, repeatedly. This is effectively the embezzlement of billions. A judge cannot order the President to do something that the Constitution specifically enjoins.
Kevin M (752a26) — 8/2/2017 @ 7:31 pmI believe it is. Sounds like I owe you a beer.
NJRob (1f95bf) — 8/2/2017 @ 8:41 pmKevin M, I’m not sure I’ve ever before heard the claim that the NY Post and the National Enquirer (which are, to me, the epitomy of lowbrow media) are hard-left.
aphrael (3f0569) — 8/2/2017 @ 9:00 pmI think the issue is whether the appropriation covers this expenditure. But I need to look this up, if I can find it.
Sammy Finkelman (86325b) — 8/3/2017 @ 12:01 amThe Wall Street Journal has an editortial today ion which they di say it is appropriations. They say Congress didn’t apprpriate after 2014.
Is this the “risk corridor?” Taht was supposed to phase out after a few years. Insurance comnpanies were supposed to estimate the risk correctly.
I am not satisfied this was not appropriated. I think could be a slightly different problem.
Sammy Finkelman (02a146) — 8/3/2017 @ 2:41 pmAnd then there’s this: https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/retired-virginia-beach-attorney-sues-gop-accusing-the-republican-party/article_f7e5e7ec-f6ad-5d09-90d5-29774701b0c2.html
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/4/2017 @ 12:20 pmI am in a Union. The last 2 contracts, 4 years ago and the new one this year had wage increases. Every single penny of those increase have been taken back for less Health Care Coverage. All out of pocket and deductibles have tripled. Not sure which unions Frank Marshals biological son, Barrack Hussein Obama, took care of but it was not mine.
highpockets60 (7d9005) — 8/4/2017 @ 11:07 pm