So … what’s next for the ACA? Since Skinny Repeal failed are we now at … Low Carb Repeal? Bipartisan Backup? Trickledown Transposition?
Or is it kicked to the curb and we move on to other things?
Trump is saying how he won’t pay the subsidies to insurance providers… but now GOP senators, like Orrin freaking Hatch, are saying that they want to codify those payments into actual law, and take control out of the hands of the president.
I like that Congress is slowly coming around to the fact that Trump is unfit to lead, and are just taking away his power rather than admitting it… because frankly, over the past few administrations, executive power has grown far beyond what I’m comfortable with.
I would add to that, we again need to address the Anti-Nepotism laws. Clearly, they aren’t working as intended.
As I said a lot earlier in this term, the one good thing about the Trump presidency is that it has brought to light the fact that a lot of things we thought were laws surrounding the executive office are actually just a bunch of guidelines and gentlemen’s agreements. It turns out that everyone in America thought we’d never need actual laws to control an insane or incompetent president because we all assumed the primary and general election process would weed out unfit candidates. Lesson learned.
Yes, I think we’ve shown that we’re past the point where honor and a sense of propriety can be assumed to keep the powerful in check.
Trump has more power than any president in history, and has none of the morality and character required to guarantee it is used wisely.
Our system of laws needs to explicitly prevent such men from having too much power, because we cannot trust the voting public to choose wise leaders any longer. When they pick idiots like Trump, their power must be very clearly defined.
I’m looking forward to the day when, much like W, we look back on the Trump days with fondness. “Hey remember when we had a president who didn’t hold a lottery for who could be part of his human throne for a day?” we will say.
That sounds like method of regulatory compliance, most likely: allow states to set a common standard so if a company meets the regulatory standards in one state they meet the requirements in all the states that share that standard. If so, that’s a good idea IMO.
There is an argument that having 50 different states standards (as was the case before ACA) is not efficient. The federal government has the power to pre-empt the states and establish different standards (this applies to some extent to the ACA with the minimum benefits requirements.)
To the extent that the GOP wants to simply make it easier to comply with state regulations and cut through some of the red tape; that’s probably a decent idea. The concern is, if they change the legal regulation of health insurance form the current model (regulations in state of purchase control) to the credit card model (regulations in state of issuance control) then that opens the door to a vast deregulation of insurance and numerous ways to evade, avoid, and undercut the minimum benefits requirements.
No it’s not the same at all. They had to go to court to take the right to choose away from the parent. Gard case is the reverse… huge and important difference. They stopped the parents before it even went through court and again, one is trying to save life, the other is trying to push death, deny treatment… they’re not remotely the same.
I don’t follow. It wasn’t the reverse. GOSH applied to the court first. Only when the court granted the hospital’s application did the parents seek an injunction (technically an interim measure) from the ECHR.
Unless there is some other case, they went to the court to get the court to allow them to remove the ventilator and the court sided with the hospital. They did not go to court to get custody. For the 17 year old, they went to court to get custody, after they had custody, they forced the teen to go through routine treatment for a treatable disease. Where did you read that the parents lost custody of the baby?
The laws between the USA and the UK are clearly different in this area. And again, one was for treatment and the other was to deny it entirely and force death.
Is 22% bad?
22% seems bad.
(Holy shit!)
Like I said originally, the cases weren’t formally the same. But they had the same broad legal effect - a court overruled the wishes of the parents in the interests of child welfare.
Clearly. But it has nothing to do with single payer.
Dean Heller’s having an enjoyable morning, I’m sure.
That is a great god damned ad. I love the “Repeal and Replace Dean Heller”. Love it.
Laura’s a college friend of mine so I’m especially motivated to bounce this clown.
That Heller ad is great. We’re going to see a lot of healthcare-related ads for Dem candidates. Here’s another, from KY, that’s just outstanding:
22% is right in crazification-factor range.
That ad against Heller is gonna fuck him bad… and you could take like half of it, and use it to run against the other 49 senators that voted for that garbage bill.
McConnel basically screwed over his entire caucus.
At least for McConnell, only a few of that caucus are in any way threatened in 2018.
What Paul Ryan did to the House Republican caucus, making them walk that shitburger plank, is almost malpractice.