ACA Arguments before SC 11/10/2020

[elfenix 34171]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

IMO, it's a failure of the local municipality to not protect it's community. Why the fuck else would a group of citizens incorporate a city if not to improve the baseline standards of living with common services like water, sewage, power, and emergency services?

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/should-firefighters-have-let-house-burn/

dude didn't live in the city.  maybe the county should have fire services for people who don't live in the city, but the population might be too disperse to make that very effective to begin with.  if the county took over fire service from the cities in it that would probably fix the problem. 

[Captainant 27464]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/should-firefighters-have-let-house-burn/

dude didn't live in the city.  maybe the county should have fire services for people who don't live in the city, but the population might be too disperse to make that very effective to begin with.  if the county took over fire service from the cities in it that would probably fix the problem. 

The fact that they drove all the way out there just to watch his house burn is a civil failure. It wasn't a matter of resources or ability to service the area, it was making a point that people should pay their protection fees or else it will happen to them.

Which in a brutally free-market sense, is completely fair. But then don't call yourself a first responder or a civil servant. Firefighting, much like healthcare, should not be a for-profit enterprise. It will inevitably lead to abuses like this one, and insurance companies giving exactly enough care to get the next paycheck from their victims, but never enough to actually improve their health outcomes.

[elfenix 34171]

it should probably be a lesson that payment of taxes, even tho in this case it was a voluntary payment, is necessary for the upkeep of the system that lets people have nice things.  which is the fatal flaw in the "government is taking away my money" argument.  you wouldn't have that much money if the system, of which government is a major part, didn't exist.

[DigglerontheHoof 21064]

$6.25/month is pretty negligible.  The dude’s a dumbass and the commanders/decision makers at the FD are heartless.

Both can be true.

Edited November 11, 2020 by DigglerontheHoof
Per month

[TwiceHorn 31283]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

It should be noted that, at least so far, things seem to be holding up relatively ok without the mandate. This is certainly to the surprise of the wonks who designed the ACA. Maybe it's just too soon and we'll see the death spiral after a few more years. I don't know shit about health insurance markets.

I think the main reason for that is that the mandate penalty was only enforced against refunds.

That is, no one was ever made to come out of pocket to pay the penalty.

[Js1 85110]

 

[wildcat09 29257]

It's pretty amazing that they couldn't even get Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch should be deeply fucking ashamed of himself.

[tx 3 putt 76392]

Great job Paxton. I’m curious which big law firm handles this for the state ?

[Js1 85110]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

It's pretty amazing that they couldn't even get Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch should be deeply fucking ashamed of himself.

Gorsuch said no to the Paxton lawsuit for the election, but Thomas would have granted them standing to proceed.

They flipped on this one.  Super unusual by Thomas.  Ginny is going to fucking beat his ass tonight at home. 

Alito in the constant "what the fuck is your problem" guy 

[wildcat09 29257]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Gorsuch said no to the Paxton lawsuit for the election, but Thomas would have granted them standing to proceed.

They flipped on this one.  Super unusual by Thomas.  Ginny is going to fucking beat his ass tonight at home. 

Alito in the constant "what the fuck is your problem" guy 

I'm honestly surprised by Gorsuch's thinking that the mandate isn't severable. That's just... beyond stupid. I'm having a hard time believing that he'd willingly put his name on something that dumb, but he did. I haven't read his dissent yet, but I'm guessing it contains some language he'll cite to in the future to justify something else, but... we're not talking about something ideologically important here. We're talking about severability. He can't possibly care about radically reshaping the law on severability, but I can't imagine what he might've said that might be useful for advancing, say, his nondelegation bullshit.

[Voldemort86 2259]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

Fuck off indictment Paxton. What a loser.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Thomas in the majority is pretty stunning. Hard to explain that one. Mildly surprised at Gorsuch but I have not read it yet. Everyone else was expected. 

[lemonlime 5503]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Thomas in the majority is pretty stunning. Hard to explain that one. Mildly surprised at Gorsuch but I have not read it yet. Everyone else was expected. 

Eh.  The GOP doesn't really want to get rid of the ACA.  They'll have a lot of pissed off constituents who've been lied to for years.  They just want to bitch and moan about the ACA and lie to people about it and its imaginary replacement.

Edit to add: Thomas is a good GQP soldier.  He was able to keep the ACA, while not actually signing on to anything in favor of it--just signing on to a standing argument.

Edited June 17, 2021 by lemonlime